CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has upheld a vigilance court’s ruling that denied the discharge of former officials involved in the 2014 Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) plot allotment scandal, affirming that sufficient evidence exists for the trial to move forward.
Justice Chittaranjan Dash rejected criminal revision petitions put forth by Bibhuti Bhusan Ray and Prakash Chandra Patra, along with two co-defendants, contesting the November 23, 2024 order from the additional special judge (vigilance) in Bhubaneswar. The petitions sought to dismiss charges related to the alleged irregular allotment of 10 commercial plots in Chandrasekharpur.
In his judgment on November 12, Justice Dash stated that the evidence in the charge-sheet clearly establishes a prima facie case. “The documents accompanying the charge-sheet, when considered at face value, reveal sufficient prima facie evidence that necessitates the petitioners to face trial,” Justice Dash noted, emphasizing that a detailed examination of evidence is neither allowed nor required at this juncture.
Justice Dash remarked that the petitioners were merely repeating arguments that had already been rejected. He recalled that even though the High Court had previously quashed cognizance in 2019, the Supreme Court overturned that decision on December 11, 2021, criticizing the HC for conducting a “mini-trial” while reviewing pre-trial evidence. “Once the Supreme Court has determined that this court made an error… the petitioners cannot seek to reappraise under the guise of an application pursuant to Section 239 of the CrPC,” Justice Dash stated.
The vigilance investigation alleges that between 1994 and 2001, BDA officials repeatedly modified layout plans to create additional plots and allocated 10 of them to relatives of BDA and Housing and Urban Development (H&UD) department officials at undervalued prices and without advertising. The allotments were supposedly made via plain paper applications, with the agency estimating a loss to the BDA of ₹71.57 lakh. The FIR, filed in 2014, accused the petitioners of misusing their official positions and conspiring to appropriate government land.
Senior advocate S. Mohapatra, representing the petitioners, argued that they were merely following directives from senior officials and were not involved in determining plot prices. He also claimed that their relatives, being adults, were fully capable of applying for plots independently.
Opposing the motions, vigilance counsel Sangram Das contended that there were “gross irregularities and deviations from established norms,” and asserted that once charges were filed, requests for discharge were no longer valid.
Finding no “illegality, impropriety, or error” in the vigilance court’s order, Justice Dash dismissed the petitions, allowing the trial to proceed.
