CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed two criminal revision petitions challenging the legality of a 2024 order refusing to discharge former officials accused in a Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) corruption case relating to irregular allotment of commercial plots in Chandrasekharpur.
The single judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the order dated November 23, 2024, passed by the Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, observing that the materials accompanying the charge sheet, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the existence of prima facie materials sufficient to presume that the petitioners are required to stand trial.
The petitions were filed by Bibhuti Bhusan Ray and Prakash Chandra Patra, along with two others, all of whom are accused of conspiring to unlawfully allot 10 plots carved out under the scheme, District Centre, Self-Financing Commercial Complex, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar.
Justice Dash noted that the defence arguments largely repeated grounds already rejected earlier. He recalled that although the high court had quashed cognisance in 2019, the Supreme Court set aside that order on December 11, 2021, holding that the high court had erred in undertaking a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage. “Once the Supreme Court held that this court had erred, the petitioners cannot seek, in the guise of an application under section 239 CrPC, an identical reappraisal,” the judge stated.
According to the Vigilance case, the plots, carved out between 1994 and 2001 after multiple revisions of the layout plan, were allotted to close relatives of officials without advertisement through plain paper applications and at prices allegedly far below the prevailing market rate. The Vigilance estimated the loss to BDA at Rs 71.57 lakh.
The charge sheet filed in May 2014 accused the petitioners of abusing their official positions and entering into a criminal conspiracy to corner government land meant for commercial use. They are facing charges under sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420/120-B IPC.
Senior advocate S Mohapatra, appearing for the petitioners, argued that they merely acted on the directions of superior authorities and had no role in determining land value. He contended that relatives of the accused were adults, who were free to apply for plots on their own merit.
The State Vigilance, represented by standing counsel Sangram Das, opposed the plea stating that blatant irregularities and deviation from prescribed norms were evident and that since charges had already been framed, the question of discharge did not arise.