The ongoing tussle between UT Administrator Gen S F Rodrigues (Retd) and Advisor Pradip Mehra hit an all-time low on Monday. The Administrator ordered a vigilance probe against Mehra in connection with six cases in which the Advisor is accused to have exceeded his quasi-judicial powers.

While the inquiry officer is yet to be finalised, it is learnt that an IPS officer is likely to be marked the probe.

Based on news reports regarding Mehra reviewing his orders in certain cases, Rodrigues had sought legal opinion from UT Senior Standing Counsel Anupam Gupta to examine the legal standing of such orders. Gupta submitted his 32-page opinion to the Administrator on Friday.

Based on the findings of the legal opinion, in which Gupta has concluded that “...all six review cases are of conscious favouritism in the exercise of power”, Rodrigues ordered the vigilance probe.

Quoting media reports that said Mehra’s predecessors, too, had been exercising the ‘review powers’, Gupta’s legal opinion mentions: “The frequent exercise of the review power in the past by Neeru Nanda and Virendra Singh cannot service to create a jurisdiction, which can be conferred only by statute. Nor does it legitimise the conscious exercise of such non-existent jurisdiction in some cases, while consciously and explicitly denying its existence in many others, as happens to be the case with Pradip Mehra.”

Reproducing the analysis of 15 such cases, where Mehra refused to entertain ‘review petitions’ and six such cases where he allowed ‘review petitions’ and even granted relief to the petitioners, Gupta remarks: “Fifteen orders passed by Pradip Mehra constitute eloquent and demonstrable proof of his own awareness of the legal limitations on his quasi-judicial powers. It is inexplicable as to how Mehra presumed to exercise the selfsame power of review in other cases, which he had repeatedly disclaimed for himself in the 15 cases. If therefore, this set of 15 cases reflects a certain pattern of exercise of power, it is but natural to infer that the other set of six cases reflects another countervailing pattern — restraint on one hand and extravagance of power on the other.”

In all, Gupta claims to have examined 144 quasi-judicial orders passed by Mehra, 11 by Neeru Nanda, six by Virendra Singh and another six by Lalit Sharma.

Confirming the development, UT Chief Vigilance Officer Ram Niwas said: “An inquiry (against Mehra) has been ordered by the Administrator.” Pradip Mehra, on the other hand, said: “I was never asked for my comments on the issue. Anyways, I will abide by the inquiry.”

Why Mehra singled out?
While officers are silent on the issue of not ordering inquiry against Mehra’s predecessors, including Neeru Nanda and Virendra Singh, who had been exercising ‘review powers’, it raises eyebrows as to why Mehra is being singled out. Ram Niwas said: “We have received the orders in the evening and are still in the process of implementing it.” In his report, Gupta has clearly mentioned that though Mehra’s predecessors were “frequently” exercising ‘review powers’, it does not legitimise the exercise of such ‘non-existent jurisdiction’.

Bones of contention
Mega projects: While Rodrigues had conceptualised four mega projects, three of them got mired in controversies, forcing the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to pitch in. The CVC set up a Vigilance Commission and withdrew all projects from the Administration’s purview. The probe is still on and the three controversial projects — Medicity, Filmcity, Amusement-cum-Theme Park — are stalled.

Medicity: Rodrigues had overlooked Mehra’s ‘opinion’ on the evaluation of land for the project. In the recently disposed of petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Administration, however, adopted a soft stand and submitted that it was willing to call fresh expressions of interest for the project. The clearance from the CVC is awaited.

Appointment of chief engineer: Without keeping Mehra (the disciplinary authority in this case) in the loop, Rodrigues approved the name of Krishanjeet Singh for the post. The orders were issued in Mehra’s absence. The CVC has recently summoned records pertaining to the appointment.

CVC inquiry against Mehra: The CVC initiated a vigilance probe against Mehra on an anonymous letter, which alleged misuse of official funds at Mehra’s residence in Delhi. The CVC, however, gave Mehra a clean chit, calling the letter “absurd”.