Chandigarh, November 2
Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and his Deputy Chief Minister son Sukhbir Singh Badal are in the dock in the transport policy manipulation case.

Just over a month after The Tribune carried a series of news reports on manipulations in the state’s transport strategy to rev up profits of private bus operations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today put the two on notice.

The notices came soon after the Bench of Acting Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina took judicial notice of an application filed by petitioner-cum-Barrister-at-Law Himmat Singh Shergill on the involvement of the Badals and their relatives in the transport sector.

Shergill had filed a petition in public interest on the basis of The Tribune exposé on how the transport policy has been manipulated to rev up profits of private players in Punjab.

As the case came up for hearing this morning, Justice Kumar, speaking for the Bench, asked Punjab Advocate-General Ashok Aggarwal whether he had gone through the third paragraph of the application.

Justice Kumar then read the paragraph in the open court. Already reported by The Tribune, the paragraph says Orbit Transporters Registered, Baaz Transporters Private Limited, Dabwali Transport and Real Estate Private Limited were all shareholders in Orbit Resorts Private Limited between September 2007 and September 2008.

The other shareholders included Chief Minister PS Badal, Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, his wife Harsimrat Kaur Badal, his brother-in-law Bikram Singh Majithia, his father-in-law Satyajit Singh Majithia, his mother-in-law Sukhmanjus Majithia, and his sister Praneet Kaur Kairon.

Appearing before the Bench, Shergill added the documents made it evident that the Deputy Chief Minister was a majority shareholder in Dabwali Transport Company Limited and its balance sheet showed the company’s turnover and other income increased manifold over the years.

The assertion was made just about a fortnight after the high court asked Shergill to browse through the website of the Registrar of Companies. The suggestion had come after Punjab Advocate-General had claimed the details of all the companies were on the website.

Shergill also told the Bench that the information was not available on the Registrar of Companies’ website, but was downloaded from the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ site.

He added the information was not accessible to the general public, and he had to seek the assistance of a company secretary and a chartered accountant. They, too, had to pay for downloading the information.

As the Bench made clear its decision to issue notice to the Chief Minister and his the Deputy Chief Minister, who is also the Home Minister, Aggarwal suggested the companies could be put on notice — a contention that failed to find favour with the Court.

The Bench made it clear to Aggarwal that his assistance was not required on that point. Issuing ‘dasti’ (by hand) notices to the father-son duo, the Bench fixed November 18 as the next date of hearing.