In an affidavit filed today in the Bombay High Court, Deputy Secretary of the State Urban Development department, Vidyadhar Deshpande, has stated that said the two public interest petitions alleging illegal construction by Vyas are just weapons to ``cause undeserved embarrassment/disrepute to the state government and the Chief Minister''. Pune corporator Nitin Jagtap and freelance journalist Vijay Kumbhar had filed the PILs.

The PILs allege that Vyas misused his political clout to dereserve the Prabhat Road plot in Pune which was originally meant for a primary school. It is alleged that officials in the Pune MunicipalCorporation changed the development control rules and allowed Vyas to construct a multi-storeyed shopping complex. Vyas then gave an alternate plot for the school in a distant suburb, the petitioners claimed. It is also alleged that before the exact orders of dereservation were issued on July 29 this year, the seven-storeyed building had already been constructed. Both these petitions are being heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice M B Shah and Y S Jahagirdar.

The Bench had ordered the respondent parties to file affidavits and explain their position before the final hearing of the case on September 25. Four affidavits, including the one by State Government, have been filed till today. The only one remaining is now from the Chief Minister Joshi who is also a respondent. Joshi's affidavit will be filed on September 21.

The State Government's affidavit today stated that two petitions are vague and solely based on newspaper reports. The Prabhat Road plot was earlier reserved for a school, but Vyas wasgiven the permission for development after following the due procedure, the affidavit states. It also states that Vyas has ``acted in public interest'' by giving alternate plot to the school as well as paying Rs 25 lakh to the Pune Municipal Corporation for the school's development.

Quite like the affidavit of the State government, the affidavit filed by PMC's city engineer Madhav Harihar, (in whose tenure the permission was granted) also details the legal process followed by the corporation for dereserving the plot.

To start with, the 3,000 square metre plot was reserved for a garden and after revision of the development plan, it was earmarked for a school. The PMC entered into an award with the owner. However, the tenants of the original plot moved the civil court and obtained an injunction, following which the option for construction of the complex was considered. Harihar has recounted all the orders that were issued by the State UDD department to the PMC regarding the construction of Vyas' complex.His affidavit also mentions that the department suggested that while deserving the plot, the municipal commissioner should invoke those rules which do not necessitate the permission of the general body of the corporation.

The affidavit of former municipal commissioner Ramanath Jha also recounts the same process in which the government, particularly UDD, directed the PMC to consider Vyas' proposal. Interestingly, though the affidavits of Jha and Harihar are quite identical, both the officers have denied working under the diktats of the CM.

Girish Vyas's affidavit claims that the two petitions are ``politically motivated'' and ``(are) part of the smear campaign being run by his political opponents of his father-in-law''. He has wondered why the petitioners did not raise the issue two years ago when the building permission was granted. Vyas has also justified the dereservation stating that a school building could not have been built on the plot which already had many existing structures.

Vyas has alsomaintained that petitioners have misread the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. He said, contrary to the opinion of the petitioners, a plot once reserved can be dereserved by revising the development plan.