8 questions for PM’s adviser in BEML land allotment case

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s adviser TKA Nair has denied that there was any “irregularity or illegality” in the allotment of two plots of land to his niece and a “family friend” In Bangalore by a cooperative society of employees of the public sector defence undertaking BEML. The denial came in response to a report in The Hindu on Sunday ( here) that alleged that the allotment of plots in December 2008 at prices far below the prevailing market prices were in violation of a stipulation that restricted such allotments to company employees. Nair, a retired IAS officer from the 1963 batch, was at that time the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary; to this day, he remains the Prime Minister’s adviser with Minister of State rank. At the time that the allotments were made, the Prime Minister’s Office, among other agencies, was looking into allegations of corruption (which were first made in 2005) involving BEML’s sourcing of Tatra trucks for the Indian Army, and in particular about the role of BEML chairman and managing director VRS Natarajan. [caption id=“attachment_280609” align=“alignright” width=“380” caption=“BEML chairman and managing director VRS Natarajan.”]  [/caption] That complaint, which was made by whistleblowers within BEML, is at the heart of the recent sensational allegation by Army chief Gen VK Singh that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe by a retired Army officer to approve the Army’s purchase of a tranche of Tatra trucks. The whistleblowers’ complaint of 2005 was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission, the Ministry of Defence and the PMO (where Nair was at that time the Principal Secretary). The bribery allegation made by Gen VK Singh is today the subject of a CBI inquiry; the investigating agency has interrogated Natarajan, among others in the case. (More details here .) The Hindu report had alleged, citing documents in its possession, that the BEML Employees Cooperative Society had allotted one plot each to Nair’s niece A. Preethy Prabha and a family friend Umadevi Nambiar. The 2,400 sq ft plots were sold for Rs 10.8 lakh each, or about Rs 450 per sq ft; the newspaper reported, citing real estate brokers, that the prevailing market price in that area at that time was about Rs 2,500-Rs 3,000 per sq ft. In both the cases, a senior official in Natarajan’s office had signed the sale deed as a witness to the transaction. The issue gave rise to concerns of serious conflict-of-interest issues because the BEML society’s allotments had been made to the close associates and relatives of a top PMO official when his office was looking into complaints of corruption against the self-same BEML. But after a former employee of BEML wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2010 to complain about the “irregular” allotments, both Preethy Prabha and Umadevi Nambiar returned the plot to the society in December 2010, without proffering any explanations. In a statement issued on Sunday in response to The Hindu report, Nair said that there was no irregularity or illegality in the allotments. “To the best of my knowledge, no irregularity or illegality was involved in the allotments. I have requested the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to obtain all the relevant facts of this matter through the Department of Defence Production,” Nair’s statement noted. Nair also dismissed the “insinuation linking these allotments with the Tatra deal” as “absolutely baseless.” Nair’s clarification is welcome, because the faintest taint of irregularity would blot what is widely acknowledged as a record of distinguished service of over four decades and more at the Central and the State levels. In all his years of service in the Punjab cadre of the IAS, Nair has a record of having made significant contribution to the industrial development of the State, even during its troubled years. [caption id=“attachment_292477” align=“alignleft” width=“150” caption=“TKA Nair.”]  [/caption] In subsequent stints as chairman of the Marine Products Export Development Authority, Nair contributed actively to promote aquaculture and to value addition in the export of marine products. He particularly enjoys the confidence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: after Pulok Chatterjee was appointed as Principal Secretary in the PMO last year, evidently at Sonia Gandhi’s bidding, Manmohan Singh elevated Nair as adviser with Minister of State rank, which places him higher up the hierarchy than Chatterjee. Yet, such a distinguished record today stands at risk of being tainted by the allegation of irregular allotments of plots to his niece and a family friend from the employees’ cooperative society of a company that his office was investigating for corruption. Nair has asked the PMO to “obtain all the relevant facts” of the case. But he should go even farther, and offer to subject himself  to an independent investigation, not an “in-house” inquiry. That will carry so much more credibility. Additionally, Nair should go the extra mile and  address the following questions, which go to the core of the allegations of impropriety against him. Answers to these questions can help him establish beyond a shadow of doubt that the allegation is really baseless. (a) Were Preethy Prabha and Umadevi Nambiar ever employees at BEML? The land had been given to the BEML society by the State government at significantly subsidised rates, and under Section 10(b) of the BEML society’s by-laws, they could allotted only to employees of the company. A Supreme Court had in 1995 (in a case involving the HMT House Building Cooperative Society) upheld a ruling that membership of such societies should be confined only to employees – and that even if nominal or associate members were enrolled, they should be “rendered ineligible for allotment of sites.” (b) If Preety Prabha and Umadevi Nambiar were not employees of BEML, what was the consideration under which they qualified for allotment of plots at prices markedly below market rates? (c) When did Nair come to know of the allotments? (d) If Nair knew of the allotments in real time, was he not struck by the irregular nature of the allotments (if indeed, Preety Prabha and Umadevi Nambiar were not employees of BEML)? Did he do anything about it? (e) Given that Nair was, as Principal Secretary in the PMO, notionally overseeing an investigation into allegations of corruption against BEML and, specifically, Natarajan, did it not strike him that an allotment of plots by a BEML society to his niece and a family friend (which was allegedly irregular in nature) reeked of conflict of interest? (f) Does it not cause Nair disquiet to know that the sale deeds in the land allotments were signed by a senior officer in Natarajan’s office, when Nair himself was overseeing the investigation of allegations of corruption against Natarajan? (g) Under what considerations did Preety Prabha and Umadevi Nambiar return the allotments to the society in 2010? Was the complaint filed by a former BEML employee to the Prime Minister and the President pointing to irregularities in plot allotments a proximate cause? If so, does it not amount to an acknowledgement that the allotment was irregular? (h) If such a case (involving someone else) were to come before Nair, would he not find that there was at least a prima facie case of irregularity and conflict of interest? It’s been well said that Ceaser’s wife must be above suspicion; the same can be said of Prime Minister’s advisers. At a time when the nation is astir with the issue of corruption in high places, the taint of even suspicions of irregularity, leading right up to the Prime Minister’s adviser, must be scrupulously addressed – and wiped off – to restore the credibility of high officials. Particularly when they have a record of distinguished service to defend.