Chronology of a Fraud
Part 1: S K Desai
| Date | Event | Effect |
| 31 May 2006 | Letter sent by S. K Desai | application for plot, referred in allotment letter given to Mehul Developers. |
| 16 Jun 2006 | Paid 151000/- | Receipt 302 |
| 6 Jul 2006 | Agenda item No 14 for 288th BOD | Differed by Board as no details given |
| | | |
| 3rd Aug 2006 284th BOD Resolution | U03 35000 sq mts allotted to S.K. Desai for warehouse project in Verna I.E | Subject to submission of PAN card and Financial sanction for plant & Machinery. No registration with DITC asked for which is mandatory as per GIDC norms |
| 11 Aug 2006 | IDC/ED/UECDU03/IV/9978 | Earmarking letter issued to S K Desai valid till 9 Nov 06 |
| 3rd Aug 2006 284th BOD Resolution | Rate for land changed form 600/sq t to 750 per sq mt | Henceforth all allotments at new rate |
| 20 Nov 2006 | Request for renewal of ear marking | Reply to 11 Aug GIDC letter |
| 15th Dec 2006 | Request for renewal | Not available in file, ref in 18/12 reply |
| 13 Jan 07 | SKD submits all documents, no copies for IT/ITES project | Requests allotment |
| 18 Jan 2007 | Extension of earmarking validity | From 10.11.06 to 9.2.07. Rs 500/- to be paid |
| Summary: Question 1: How come S K Desai was even given a plot of 35000 sq mts without proving his financial and professional abilities. Extension of earmarking is to be done carefully as GIDC loses with earmarking since no dues are collected. Upto 18th Jan, there is no renewal of the earmarking nor any details given to justify extension. However it is clear S K Desai is trying to sell the plot to Mehul developers pvt ltd. During earmarking period GIDC does not claim lease rental nor interest on Lease premium due Question 2: Who is responsible for the financial loss to GIDC for not reverting or not issuing allotment order to S K Desai? | ||
| | ||
| PART 2: Mehul Developers Pvt Ltd (Allottment or transfer) | ||
| 27 July 2006 | Mehul Developers Pvt Ltd | Formed as per ROC documents |
| 23 Jan 2007 | Mehul Developers applies | |
| 24th Jan 2007 | SKD requests allotment letter in favour of Mehul for IT/ITES project | Says he submitted all documents t GIDC. This is a utility plot and hence change needs board approval |
| 29th Jan 2007 | Mehul board resolution | Authorisation to rep in GIDC |
| 7th Feb 2007 | Board resolution by mehul | For modifying articles to include IT/ITES. Earlier they said they have done such projects. |
| 15 Feb 2007 294 Board Resolution | Allotment of U03 35000 sq mts to Mehul Developers Pvt Ltd (co under formation) | Agenda mentions Desai but minutes mention Mehul which was formed much earlier. Project changed from warehousing to IT/ITES. Project cost remain the same as Desai’s application. |
| 16th Feb 2007 | Lease premium of 42 lacs and lease rent of 2.7 lacs paid vide Reciept No PNJ 1282 | Mehul paid vide receipt no 1282 |
| 16th Feb 2007 | Rec no 1283 | Rs 500/- assume this is as per GIDC letter to SKD for renewal of earmarking |
| 19 Feb 2007 1 | Allotment letter issued | In favour of Mehul. Asked for change in MOM and 500/- |
| 23 Feb 2007 | Mehul applies to DITC | Application for EM |
| 27th Feb 2007 | EM issued by DITC | For data processing software consultancy |
| 28th Feb 2007 | Mehul gives copies of PAN application and change in MOM | No clarification on finance availability |
| 1 Mar 2007 IDC/ED/VECP/U03/IV?12960 | Allotment Order Issued to Mehul Developers Pvt ltd | 1) Desai’s letters are quoted. Why? 2) The lease premium is 600/sq mt 3) Mentions deposit paid, by whom Mehul or Desai 4) Lease rent attracts 15% interest for default 5) Lease premium attracts 11% compounded on balance payable 6) Installment of premium attracts 18% penalty if delayed. |
| Summary:Question 1: Why was Mehul’s name introduced in the minutes when the BOD passed allotment in favour of S K Desai. Question 2: Why was allotment made at Rs 600/- when rate was 750/-. Question 3: Mehul mentions expertise in IT/ITES when it is recently formed (under formation as per GIDC) yet their MOM does not mention this activity, it was added. GIDC says that under earmarking conditions plots can be transferred without payment of transfer fees and there are many cases like this. WHY SHOULD A RIGHT BE CREATED WITHOUT ANY FINACIAL LIABILITY? Anyhow this is not a transfer as it was no transfer note was prepared, it was a fresh allotment approved by the board. Even if it is a transfer since it is too an unrelated party 20% transfer charge is applicable. Question 4: Who is responsible for loss to exchchequer | ||
| PART 3: SPLITTING OF PLOTS BY MEHUL | ||
| 16 Mar 2007 | Mehul applies to split U03 into 8 plots | Mention that they will go for 8 separate projects and therefore need 8 plots |
| 16th Mar 2007 | FM approves sudivision | Same day as application in HO |
| 20th Apr 2007 | Approval for const plot U03-E | No dwg copy or application copy |
| | | |
| 24 July 2007 IDC/ED/VECP/U03/IV/1355 | MD Palekar approves split into 8 plots U03C, U03D, U03E, U03F, U03G, U03H, U03I, U03J as partial modification of allotment order | Without verification of project reports, constitution of new companies as this attracts transfer fees etc. Strange and that too within a week, very efficient. This is not reflected in RTI reply dated 13/1/11. Copy is not available in File. |
| Summary: Why so much of a hurry to split the plots, why were no questions asked about ownership as that entails transfer fees Question : GIDC approved one project. If it is split into 8 projects will not the board need to be informed? | ||
| 30th May 2008 | GIDC asks for dues | Inst 42lacs/ lase pre 2.7 and int 18.48 and 1.67 resp. total 64.85 |
| 16th Jun 2008 | Rec PNJ 357 pd by Mehul | Pd lease premium 42 lacs/17.6 lacs and lease rent 2.4 lacs. Total 62 lacs, short by 2.85 lacs |
| PART 4: MEHUL CLEARLY DENIES PLOT FOR BOSCH | ||
| 7th Aug 2008 | Copy of circular sent to Mehul | Unutilised plots banned for transfer w e f 1/10/08 |
| 8th Aug 2008 | GIDC submits for lease deed registration | Signed on 24th sept 2008 |
| 29th Sept 2008 | Mehul applies to trf plots | U03 H, U 03 C and U 03 B in dulicate but same inward no |
| 29th Sept 2008 | Mehul applies to trf plots | U03 D, U 03I U03 F U03 G and U 03E in dulicate but same inward no |
| | Mehul Application for transfer to BOSCH Statement of pending trfs put before board | This is made known in a list of pending transfers to GIDC board before “BAN on bare plot came into effect on 30 Sept 2008. Here it is also mentioned that Mehul has outstanding dues. |
| Summary: Mehul clearly has no intention of doing any project, a day before the ban on BARE PLOT transfers, they apply o register their intention to transfer. They have not paid any dues. Why was the plot not revoked and given to BOSCH who was looking at the time? The fact that Mehul wished to transfer to BOSCH is a clear indication. Question: Is one company’s interest more important than GOA’s interest? | ||
| PART 5: TIME PASS till buyer is found | ||
| 22nd July 2010 | IDC issued outstanding dues certificate | Bal prem 1.26 crores, int 34.38 lacs, 4.78 lacs, 4.80 lacs. Lease rent 5.7 lacs and int 35k. total 1.76 crores No details of calculation |
| 9th Aug 2010 | Collect original lease deed | GIDC authorized Shaikh |
| 15th Sept 2010 | GIDC gives approval for revised plan on all 8 plots | No application is on record. Two letters one ask for 21k infrastructure tax and one for 3k construction fees. Oddly address is Porvorim, no application seen for change of address |
| 27th Sept 2010 | U03E revised plan approval | No demand for fees tax? No application copy seen. |
| 29th Oct 2010 | Dues outstanding issued | Lease prem 1.26 crores Int 37.84, 5.88 6.09 lacs. Lease rent 5.7 and int 57k Less dep of 1.5 lacs which was paid by S K Desai. Total due 1.81 crores |
| | | |
| PART 5: THE ILLEGAL TRANSFER AT LIGHTENING SPEED | ||
| | ||
| 19th Nov 20011 | Mehul applies to transfer plot to Watson | Encloses all necessary detail of Watson (100pgs). Check the speed. It goes form dealing hand thru DyGm(A)/MD.Back to DyGm (A), Dealing hand prepares transfer order and DyGM(A) issues the same. The transfer is not put up before the GIDC Core Committee as required, nor is any mention made of a bare plot transfer, instead they mention Field manager should give a report and before report issue transfer order. The transfer notings mention a coverage of just 3136 sq mts on a plot of 35000 (15000 additional of vrushal) ie less than 10% of Mehul plot, is that not violation of guidelines? |
| 19th Nov 2010 IDC/ED/VECP/U03/IV/3549 | DGM (ADM) Borges send a letter to Mehul transferring the 8 lots plus an additional 15000 sq mts of vrushal enterprises to Watson Pharm, subject to certain conditions | Here the rate is correctly mentioned as Rs 750 sq mt and lease premium installment is correct @52.5 lacs. Lease rent is also mentioned @ Rs 3.755 per year. However the amount claimed.from Mehul towards outstanding dues seems incorrect. The letter is issued without authorization from the Board, despite meeting being held in Oct 10 and Dec 10. This letter is not in file despite inspection done at SIC orders on 15th Jun 2011. Subsequent inspection as per GIC order reveals the second file hidden intentionally by GIDC |
| 22nd Nov 2011 | Verna Field Manager issues inspection report | He says that as per approved plans, he notices construction work has started and one structure as per plan is almost complete. Task Force joint inspection report conducted later found nothing other than a freshly build guard house. |
| | Watson Pharm pay dues | Letter mentions 17600695/- and 5592500/- towards dues and transfer charges. Also falsely mentions acknowledgement of DITC(HPCC). DITC returned application asking for the same in proper format for HPCC. Till date no application made to HPCC. |
| | GIDC issues receipts 973 for 1.806 crores and 974 for 55.93 lacs | Despite getting only 1.76 crores as per Watson letter the receipt is issued for 1.81 crores. There is no mention of how the difference arrived. |
| | Mehul Applies for NO DUES CERTIFICATE | |
| 23rd Nov 2011 | GIDC issues order for transfer IDC/ED/VECP/IV/U03/3572 | Without waiting for cheques to clear order is issued. Even if you buy a new car costing a few lacs this is not possible. |
| 25th Nov 2011 | IDC/ED/VECP/U03/IV3607 | No dues certificate issued |
| 26th Nov 2011 | Lease deed signed and logged for registration | |
| Feb 11 | Task Force declares U03 as unutilsed and thus due for revocation | GIDC MD never mentioned that the plot was already proposed for transfer. Borges was also present at the meetings. There is no structure on the plot as mentioned by Field Manager. This can be proved by a site visit even now. |
| Mar 11 | Starred question in assembly states that U03 has been transferred | However the conditions listed in the illegal letter have not been fulfilled. |
| Till date | Despite 2G type scam | No Government Action |
| Summary: The haste at which this transfer was done indicates illegality as GIDC does not have a glowing record for efficiency. They have tried to cover bare plot transfer by saying that there is a construction as per plans. The TF report bares this lie as even 3 months later there was no building on the site. By paying finally apporx a crore, Mehul was able to trade in a plot worth 2.7 crores, as finally Watson paid the balance. QUESTION: Why is this illegal transfer not being reverted? Watson is a genuine party and thus can apply for the plot again as per rules and thus close a legal transaction. QUESTION: Why is GIDC protecting officers who have clearly caused a loss to the exchequer QUESTION: Why is Watson being given a total of 50000 sq mts when their plans indicate coverge of just 3136 sq mts? | ||
| Unrelated to the above case: IT department has sort details of this case | ||
| Surprise package: Vide IDC/ED/VECP/U03/IV/5019 dated 22/2/11, GIDC issued a show cause to Watson Pharm asking them to explain why the plot should not be taken back as they have not started construction with 3 mths as per allotment order. Was the pressure of the TF responsible or the fact that Watson had no Godfathers and thus explaination was demanded. There is no similar letter in the whole Mehul file despite being unutilized from the start. The Field manager has even been asked to inspect the plot in the presence of two panchas. Watson replied on 21st March 2011, despite being only 10 days to respond, and said they have started work and ordered machines. FM conducted inspection on 6th March saying construction activities had begun and no witness signatures is observed. Where is the reference to the building he saw earlier? | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment