AHMEDABAD: Gujarat Supreme Council has dismissed petitions filed by two former fisheries ministers, Parshottam Solanki and Dilip Sanganiseeking immunity from criminal prosecution by the Anti-Corruption Bureau over an alleged Rs. fishing scam.
On March 12, 2021, the Gandhinagar Special Anti-Corruption Court refused to remove former Gujarat cabinet minister Sanghani, former state minister Solanki and another accused Arunkumar Sutaria from their posts.
Taking into account the investigation report of the investigator, the lower court said that prima facie, a case has been registered against the accused. In rejecting the release applications filed by the seven defendants, the court of first instance stated that “this court considers that these allegations are not without merit.”
Three of them approached the High Court challenging the trial court’s order, which has stayed the criminal proceedings. Judge Hemant Prachchhak on Friday rejected a request for release, paving the way for a trial in the case former minister and his subordinates were accused of corruption. However, upon request, the judge extended the stay by four weeks.
The case went through a long and arduous legal battle
In this case, the complainant, Ishaq Maradia, sought the intervention of the Supreme Council to expose alleged irregularities during Solanki’s tenure as fisheries minister and to cancel the fishing contract.
Maradia had to fight an uphill legal battle to get the governor’s consent to criminal prosecution of ministers.
Finally, Solanki, Sanghani and others were accused of awarding fishing contracts to cooperative groups in 58 reservoirs in the state without any bidding process. They have been charged under offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
There have been various proceedings in the High Court since the former ministers were charged and the special court issued summons against them. In 2018, the Supreme Court rejected their request to quash the criminal charges and subpoenas. The defendant’s request for release was denied, resulting in the defendant being brought before the Supreme Court again.
