SC rejects probe into Robert Vadra land deal, asks petitioner not to use PIL for cheap publicity

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe or a CAG audit into the various land deals of Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, saying that no one could be dubbed a “sinner” merely because “he was related to a politician”.

“In the name of PIL, we won’t allow you to destroy someone’s reputation. Merely because someone is related to a politician, you cannot call him a sinner,” said Justice HL Dattu, who was sitting alongside Justice Ranjan Gogoi in the bench hearing the case. In his petition, Sharma alleged that between 2005 and 2012, Haryana’s town and country planning department had issued hundreds of licences to develop housing colonies, spread over 21,366 acres.

The licences were issued to developers without complying with the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Usban Areas Act, 1975. The alleged largesse caused a loss of .`3.9 lakh crore to the state, the petition alleged. The PIL asked the court to quash the licences and order a probe to identify those responsible for these decisions.

“Vadra’s Skylight Hospitality (a joint venture with DLF) is one of the glaring examples, which was given two group housing licences in village Sihi in Sector 82 of Gurgaon for 6.2 acres and 15 acres. It was granted another licence for plotted development for 4.8 acres in Shikohpur,” it alleged. “Skylight Hospitality was neither owner of the said land nor did it have the financing capacity to develop the land in any manner as required by the Act.” Acting on various complaints, former CAG Vinod Rai issued notices and started to audit the licences issued to the private developers. Sharma alleged, quoted media reports, that the new CAG, Shashi Kant Sharma, suspended the inquiry on June 3, 2013 “under political directions to provide official favour to some licences holder, including Skylight Hospitality, which is a serious offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”

But the bench pointed out that it could not quash any order without going into specifics. Sharma also alleged that all the files relating to the case were with Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and no information was available on it even under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

Justice Dattu scoffed at these claims, wondering why he was not approaching the Punjab and Haryana High Court to get the necessary information about the case. “You can always go to the high court and complain that the chief minister was sitting on the files, instead of sitting on the chair,” Justice Dattu said .

Justice Dattu, who is in line to be the Chief Justice of India, also criticised petitioner Sharma for singling out Vadra when many others were allotted land in Haryana. “Why have you not alleged anything against the others,” he sought to know.

Justice Dattu first threatened to dismiss the petition, but ultimately gave Sharma a face-saver—he was allowed to withdraw the PIL.