Chaturvedi ‘personal dispute’ can’t come up as PIL: ASG
New Delhi: The Centre on Monday alleged in Delhi high court that an NGO was being “used as a proxy litigant” by an IFoS officer to raise the agenda of alleged corruption in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
The Union ministry of health and family welfare alleged in the court that NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) has brought the allegations which were levelled in personal capacity by Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who was the chief vigilance officer of AIIMS from 2012 to 2014.
Additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain told a bench of acting chief justice Gita Mittal and justice C. Hari Shankar that the PIL was filed at the behest of Mr Chaturvedi. “Why CPIL, an NGO, is being used as a proxy litigant when Mr Chaturvedi should actually be the petitioner. The CPIL should be discharged from the case and instead Mr Chaturvedi should be made the petitioner,” Mr Jain said He said that Mr Chaturvedi, a 2002 batch Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer of the Haryana cadre, is a private respondent who has filed several affidavits in the matter and the CPIL is a reputed petitioner whose name should not be spoilt. “His personal dispute shouldn’t be brought in as a PIL,” Mr Jain said. The bench listed the matter for further hearing on October 12.
Initially, a PIL was filed by the NGO seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry in cases of alleged irregularities and corruption in AIIMS during his tenure between 2012 and 2014.
The court had issued notices on a petition seeking revival of all cases in which actions were made by Mr Chaturvedi before he was sacked by then Union health minister Harsh Vardhan in August 2014 as CVO of AIIMS.
The plea said Mr Chatu-rvedi, posted as conservator of forest at Haldwani in Uttarakh-and, started acting against corruption cases, including “supply of fake medicines by a private chemist shop and middlemen in making fake OPD cards.” The CB, stated, “No criminality has been found on the part of officials of AIIMS and hence no FIR was registered.”