High-profile single lease case involving ex-minister Shanti Dhariwal in High Court today

Jaipur, May 15 (IANS) The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday will resume hearing the high-profile single lease case involving former Minister Shanti Dhariwal, retired IAS officer G.S. Sandhu, and others.

The matter was last heard on Wednesday by a bench led by Chief Justice M.M. Shrivastava, during which Sandhu presented his arguments and urged the court to quash the case.

The case pertains to seven criminal petitions filed by Dhariwal, Sandhu, RAS officer Nishkam Diwakar, and then Deputy Commissioner Omkarmal Saini. These petitions are being reviewed following directions from the Supreme Court, which asked the High Court to conclude the matter within six months.

Appearing for Sandhu, Advocate S.S. Hora told the court that a 2005 application sought a single lease for 3.43 hectares of land in Todi Ramjanipura, Jaipur.

As the area exceeded permissible limits, the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) forwarded the request to the state government, which initially rejected it.

However, the application resurfaced in 2009, and the lease was eventually approved in 2011. It was later cancelled in 2013, prompting Ramsharan Singh to lodge a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2014.

Sandhu argued that no criminal offense occurred and noted that the state government had previously moved the ACB court to withdraw the case. He therefore requested the High Court to dismiss the proceedings.

The “single lease” or Ekal Patta case dates back to June 29, 2011, when the JDA issued a lease to Shailendra Garg of Ganpati Construction. The lease's cancellation in 2013, following the ACB complaint, triggered a prolonged investigation that led to the arrest of several senior officials, including Sandhu, Diwakar, and Saini. Dhariwal, who was a minister at the time, was also questioned over his alleged role.

A key development occurred on November 15, 2022, when the High Court granted relief to Dhariwal by quashing a protest petition and staying proceedings against him in the ACB special court. His lawyers contended that he was neither named in the original FIR nor charge sheet, and that the ACB’s closure report found no direct evidence against him.

Despite this, fresh petitions were later filed in the Supreme Court seeking a comprehensive review. The apex court subsequently directed the High Court to expedite the hearings and deliver a verdict within six months.

--IANS

arc/skp