CBI files report Mayawati in Taj Heritage Corridor case

Lucknow, Feb 15 (UNI) Days before the crucial Uttar Pradesh assembly poll, CBI today filed a report against former Chief Minister Mayawati and three others in the multi-crore Taj Heritage Corridor case in the Special Court (Anti Corruption) here.

CBI official D C Dwivedi filed the 155-page report in the court of special judge H N Prasad Agarwal, who later posted the next hearing to May 15.

The central agency is investigating the case in pursuance of the Supreme Court order in connection with the Rs 175 crore Taj Heritage Corridor (THC) case.

The report indicts Ms Mayawati, then UP ministers Naseem-ud-din Siddiqui, R K Sharma and former state environment under secretary Rajendra Prasad in the case.

The development could spell trouble for Ms Mayawati ahead of the assembly election, as the opposition could rake up the issue during electioneering.

Ms Mayawati, while addressing a news conference here said she has all honour for the judiciary and was hopeful to get justice.

However, Chief Minister Mulayam Singh today preferred to remain silent on the issue, saying it was not an appropriate time to comment on the development. Congress UP president Salman Khurshid also skirted the issue, saying the law will take its own course.

Earlier, the CBI had come in for severe criticism from the Suprem Court for taking legal opinion in the case. This was done by the agency despite the fact, that the entire investigating team had favoured Mayawati's prosecution.

While senior officials remained tightlipped on the contents of the evidence, since it had been placed before the court, officials said the agency had done exhaustive work.

Now the court would proceed as per the Suprem Court directions in the case in accordance with section 173 (2) of CrPC.

However, the papers submitted by the agency today does not include the report of the central vigilance commissioner and the attorney general.

A Public Interest Litigation had been earlier filed by an advocate, challenging the decision not to prosecute the former Chief Minister on the basis of opinion expressed by the attorney general, when the investigating officer in the case had opined otherwise. The apex court had said the opinion of the AG was not required.

MORE UNI