A special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court in Gandhinagar on Friday, 8 February issued a bailable warrant against Gujarat minister Purshottam Solanki after he failed to appear before the court in the alleged Rs 400-crore fisheries scam.
Special court judge R M Vora issued the warrant against Solanki and kept the matter for hearing on 2 March, before which, the BJP leader is required to approach the court to get the warrant cancelled.
Apart from Solanki, who is Minister of State for Fisheries in the BJP government in Gujarat, the ACB court had also initiated proceedings against former minister Dileep Sanghani and issued summons to both in the past.
Sanghani’s lawyer was present in the court on Friday. However, as neither Solanki nor his lawyer were present, the court issued a warrant against him. In December last year, the Gujarat High Court had rejected Solanki and Sanghani’s petitions challenging proceedings initiated against them by the special court.
Both Solanki and Sanghani had moved the high court after the ACB court in Gandhinagar issued summons to them, taking into account an ACB inquiry report about the alleged irregularities in awarding fishing contracts.
The case dates to 2008 when Solanki was MoS Fisheries and Sanghani the Cabinet Minister for Agriculture. At that time, Palanpur-based businessman Ishaq Maradia had moved the high court alleging that Solanki flouted the rules by allotting contracts without following the tendering process.
Maradia had alleged that Solanki was involved in a "scam" as he illegally granted contracts for fishing in 58 reservoirs across the state. In 2013, Maradia filed an application in the ACB court demanding criminal prosecution of Solanki and Sanghani under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
After the case was lodged against Solanki and Sanghani in 2013, the Gandhinagar court had asked the ACB to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and asked the officials to submit a report.
A report in this regard was submitted before the ACB court in 2015, which had indicated irregularities while awarding the contracts for fisheries.
Following these findings, suggesting irregularities, the special ACB court had issued proceedings against the two under the Prevention of Corruption Act and issued summons to them.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)