The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) commissioner RA Rajeev appeared before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday in a case linked to Tops Grup and Shiv Sena legislator Pratap Sarnaik.
The MMRDA chief arrived at the ED’s Ballard Estate office around noon for recording his statement. He left the ED office at around 7.15 pm. “I was asked about the tendering process of MMRDA and who takes the decision,” he told media persons after the questioning adding that his statement was recorded till 4 pm. When asked about the alleged clean chit given to the Tops Grup by MMRDA before Mumbai police’s Economic Offences Wing which is also probing a case, Rajiv said, “No clean chit has been given”
To recall, the MMRDA clarified on Monday that Rajeev will be visiting the ED office on behalf of MMRDA though the case pertains to his predecessor’s tenure. The ED is slated to record the statement of another senior officer of MMRDA whose name allegedly surfaced in chats between former Tops Grup managing director Marth Sasidharan and Amit Chandole, both earlier arrested in the case. The duo are allegedly discussing bribing the officer who is slated to be questioned in the case.
Meanwhile, the ED has issued fresh summons to Armaan Jain, grandson of late Bollywood actor and director Raj Kapoor, in connection with the same case. Jain has been asked to appear on Wednesday. The ED has earlier detailed before the court the alleged misappropriation based on the statements recorded of Ramesh Iyer of Topsgrup and Amar Panghal, ex-finance director of Topsgrup. “Iyer and Panghal in their statements stated that in the year 2014, a contract was signed by M/s Topsgrup services and solutions limited, with MMRDA as per which there were about 350 to 500 guards which were to be deployed on MMRDA sites on a monthly basis. That out of the same, only 70% of guards were actually deployed; that however the billing was done for all the guards as per contract and the wages paid details were submitted to MMRDA for 100 % of the contract value based on the number of guards to be deployed as per the contract and not on the basis of actual deployment of the guards,” the agency has earlier told the court. “That accordingly compliance documents like PFs/ESIC are being submitted for 100% of the contract value and not on the basis of actual deployment, i.e at the reduced strength of the guards deployed.”
