The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the CBI and police on a plea by an NGO alleging that disinfectants and fogging solutions were procured for AIIMS trauma centre at exorbitant rates without any quotation by certain former officers, including the then chief of the premier medical institute.
The high court issued notices to the CBI, Delhi Police, former director of AIIMS Dr M C Mishra, the then professor in-charge of purchases Dr Amit Gupta, and ex-store officer T R Mahajan and partners of firm Drishti Medicos and Surgical on the petition which was filed in 2018.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asked the police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file their respective status reports on the matter and listed it for further hearing on September 14.
Petitioner NGO ‘Janhit Abhian-A Campaign For People Voice’ alleged that these people conspired with each other to cause loss to the exchequer by embezzlement of funds in violation of rules laid down in the Central government Finance Rules.
The plea claimed that the firm from which the purchases were made at higher prices was owned by the son and daughter-in-law of Mahajan.
It was alleged that Mahajan, in conspiracy with Gupta, purchased the disinfectants/fogging solutions from the firm without any tender or quotation, on the basis of a forged propriety certificate, at a substantially higher price at which the same items were being purchased in the main hospital through rate contract.
The plea claimed that purchases of cleaning disinfectants and fogging solutions were made from November 2012 to March 2014 by declaring them as proprietary items.
It said proprietary items are those which are innovative in nature and technologically so complex that they are manufactured by a particular firm while these items were general in nature.
“The said purchases were made possible through the approval of Dr Amit Gupta and Dr M C Mishra. Neither Dr Mishra nor Dr Gupta ever objected. Further, they never tried to make any enquiry about the proprietary nature of the said product as being experienced medical professionals, they were very well aware that these are routine items and can never be put into the category of proprietary items,” the petition alleged.
The complaint was initially filed before a trial court seeking action which dismissed it, after which the petitioner approached the high court challenging the lower court’s order.