AG concerned over Rane's allegations

mumbai: maharashtra advocate general goolam vahanvati on tuesday expressed concern before the bombay high court over serious allegations made against deputy chief minister chhagan bhujbal in a public interest litigation (pil) filed by opposition leader narayan rane without an iota of proof. mr vahanvati said that in the absence of any proof to substantiate allegations against mr bhujbal, the petition filed by mr rane seeking a cbi inquiry in the penwala detention case is nothing but a political petition.the question before a division bench headed by justice r.m. lodha was of serious legal implications regarding the cofeposa act. what was being debated was whether the state could revoke an order of detention under cofeposa before it was executed (that is, in the pre-detention stage)? mr vahanvati pointed out to an earlier bombay hc order of 1980 which said it could. the hearing in the pil would continue on wednesday. mr rane had filed the pil after the state home department overturned its own order okaying the proposal of the customs department to detain exporters hakim penwala and mufazzal penwala under the cofeposa act. bjp leader gopinath munde alleged during the last assembly session that deputy chief minister chhagan bhujbal, who also holds the home portfolio, had passed the orders for a monetary consideration. denying the charge, mr bhujbal had said that he had delegated the quasi-judicial powers to m.r. patil, the then additional chief secretary (home). the penwala duo __ father and son __ were arrested by the customs for allegedly misusing the export incentive scheme. it was an alleged ``duty draw-back'' fraud, in which unscrupulous exporters inflate the value of exported goods and then claim proportionate cash incentive from the government. mr rane challenged the validity of the revocation orders as well as the manner in which it was pushed through. his counsel uday lalit stressed that the revocation order could not be passed and that mr patil had bypassed the detaining authority. mr rane's basic argument was that neither the state nor the centre can revoke a detention order under section 11 of cofeposa during a pre-detention stage. speaking for the government, mr vahanvati informed court that in the larger public interest, he understood the concern that there should be some proper guidelines for passing detention orders and their revocation under cofeposa so that once and for all it would put a stop to unsubstantiated allegations. mr vahanvati said, he, in coordination with the state chief secretary, would formulate guidelines to streamline procedures to pass and revoke detention orders under cofeposa. but asking mr rane's counsel to substantiate allegations against the dcm, said, ``there is a high principle that there must be probity in public life but there is an equally high principle that allegations cannot be made without basis.'' mr vahanvati, while submitting that the state was not interested in either supporting or putting down any officer, questioned the validity of allegations made against mr bhujbal. justice lodha also asked mr lalit whether he would continue to press the allegations and warned that failure to substantiate serious allegations may also invite serious consequences.