The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday objected to former minister Mopidevi Venkataramana’s bail alleging that he had intentionally not disclosed information during Cabinet meetings as he had conspired with the other accused in the Vanpic scam that caused wrongful gains to private individuals.
Objecting to the former minister’s bail petition before the special court for CBI cases, the CBI’s counsel said that Mr Venkataramana had been aware of Vanpic Ports Private Limited’s communication dated June 29, 2008 stating that they needed 28,000 acres of land for the integrated project. He, however, had not revealed the same during the Cabinet meeting on June 30, which was a clear case of deception.
Quoting the AP Government Business Rule 18 (3), counsel said: “The minister was to study and explain to the Cabinet every detail of the project. However, Mr Venkataramana intentionally did not do so.” The state government wanted to allocate 2,000 acres of land each for development of the Vadarevu and Nizampatnam ports, which were 30 km south and north of the two ports respectively. However, the minister, without informing the Cabinet, approved the request of the developer to allocate the land within a radius of 30 km of the two ports, alleged the CBI counsel.
The CBI also alleged that the minister had overruled instructions and suggestions of the officials of his department while approving the developer’s request for allocation of land within a radius of 30 km of the two ports. The CBI alleged that there were gross violations and inconsistencies in the concession agreement. While 4,000 acres meant for the two ports would be allotted in the name of Vanpic Ports Private Limited — the special purpose vehicle (SPV) created for execution of the project — 24,000 acres of land meant for the port-based industrial corridor would have been allotted to Vanpic Projects Private Limited, a company incorporated and completely controlled by Mr Nimmagadda Prasad, the Indian partner of the integrated project developer.
This 24,000 acres of land would never come back to the government and Mr Prasad would have become the absolute owner of the vast extent of land in Prakasam and Guntur districts. As many as 12,973 acres of land has already been acquired from poor farmers, said the counsel. Another inconsistency of the concession agreement was that the stake of the Government of Ras Al Khaima (GoRAK) was diluted from 51 per cent to 26 per cent facilitating the entry of another private company, Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, into the SPV. The new company cornered 65 per cent of equity and got control over the SPV, defeating the objective of awarding the project on a Government to Government (G2G) basis without going through open competitive bidding, the CBI counsel said.
The CBI also informed the court that many witnesses were coming forward after the arrest of Mr Venkataramana to which the latter’s counsel objected stating that merely saying witnesses were coming was not enough and the CBI should show evidence. Following this the CBI counsel presented a statement of a witness to the judge and stated that the identity could not be revealed. The CBI counsel also informed that medical grounds were not valid reasons and prison authorities would take care of the former minister and send him to the best hospital in the city if necessary. The court reserved its orders for June 7.