Arvind Bobde, senior counsel for the petitioners in the on-going Pune land scam case, today argued that ``The department officials knew that the application was being made by the Chief Minister's son-in-law. They knew that the person keen on getting the permission through is the Chief Minister. So somebody there decided that if it is the Chief Minister who wants it to be done, let the papers be put to the Chief Minister,'' said Bobde in his arguments. Bobde, in fact turned the debate all around after counsel for Joshi, Harish Salve forcefully closed his arguments that there was no ``clinching evidence of mala fides'' on the part of the former Chief Minister.

A division bench of Justice Srikrishna and Justice S S Parkar arehearing, since February 8, a public interest petition filed by two Puneites on mala fides committed by Joshi and the state in dereserving a plot for a primary school and allowing his son-in-law, Girish Vyas, to construct a multistoreyed building complex.

Citing case after case, Salve, who made his submissions from Tuesday, argued that the note that was presented to the Chief Minister had only a single remark from the Chief Minister: Do what is right legally, there is no objection. ``Nothing that is mala fide can be inferred from these remarks,'' he argued and claimed that it was in fact the department that took the decision of dereserving the plot for Vyas.

``The policy decision taken to return the (reserved) plot (to the owner), take the money (given by the PMC to acquire the plot) and ask the tenants to withdraw suits filed by them in the various courts was taken by the department and PMC officials,'' he said. They were helped, he said, by the ``ghost of Kothrud'' where in an earlier case, areservation was shifted at Kothrud without seeking the approval of the Pune corporation. He argued that even if the Chief Minister wanted to help his son-in-law, there were other methods. ``Nobody would be foolhardy enough to put 32 years of his career and seat as Chief Minister in a jeopardy by such an action,'' he argued and pointed out that everybody today is aware of the fragility of governments and the increasing possibility of wrong decisions coming back to haunt them.

However, in his submission after all the respondents had completed their arguments, Bobde urged that the bench enquire into the necessity of presenting the paper for the Chief Minister's permission. ``If the Kothrud case had not gone to the Chief Minister, and if this case were only following the Kothrud precedent, why should the paper go to the Chief Minister? And why should the CM look into it?'' he asked.

He read from the agreement papers signed between Vyas and the owner of the plot Murudkar and alleged that short of guaranteeinga dereservation, the developer, Vyas Constructions, had assured the owner that the project of a residential complex would come through.