State of Madhya Pradesh RERA Rejects EOW Probe into Chairman’s Allegations of Corruption

BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has openly opposed the registration of an inquiry by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) against its chairman, AP Srivastava. The Authority argues that the investigation is unjustified and unnecessary, asserting that it is legally protected under section 90 of the RERA Act.

Recently, the EOW initiated a preliminary inquiry in response to a complaint accusing Srivastava of corruption, misuse of his official position, and violation of regulatory norms.

The complaint primarily focuses on Srivastava’s alleged manipulation of the recruitment process for certain RERA positions. According to the complaint, only one of the two sanctioned posts for adjudication officers was publicly advertised, while the second post was filled without any formal public notice.

Moreover, it is alleged that Srivastava ignored the age limit requirement for contractual appointments, which states that no individual above the age of 65 should be appointed. However, Srivastava is accused of appointing someone beyond this age limit.

Another key point raised in the complaint relates to projects handled by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd., a construction firm. The complainant alleges that Srivastava purchased a residential plot from the same builder, against whom an investigation is currently underway. This accusation further adds to the controversy surrounding the chairman’s role and actions.

In response to these allegations, RERA’s legal team has firmly opposed the EOW’s investigation. They argue that the inquiry is not justified, stressing that the Authority’s operations and decisions are legally protected under the RERA Act.

Specifically, section 90 of the Act provides immunity to the chairman, members, and officers from legal proceedings in their official capacity. The provision clearly states that no suit, prosecution, or any other legal proceeding can be initiated against them for actions taken while performing their duties within the Authority.

This legal protection has become a focal point in the current controversy, as Srivastava faces mounting accusations. Alongside allegations of irregular appointments, the complaint also highlights issues related to projects overseen by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Despite the growing number of allegations and the initiation of the EOW inquiry, RERA continues to maintain its position that the investigation disregards the statutory protections outlined in the RERA Act.

To support their opposition to the EOW’s actions, RERA’s legal team has referenced several key provisions within the RERA Act. Section 28 of the Act details the procedure for appointing officers and employees from the state government on deputation to RERA.

Furthermore, section 71 mandates that the adjudicating officers are appointed by the Authority itself, with the state government merely serving a consultative role. Additionally, section 25 and Rule 21 provide the Authority with exclusive rights to make decisions and appointments regarding its operations.

Sections 28 (2) and Rule 22 (1) govern the service conditions for deputed and contract officers, while Rule 22 (2) deals with the appointment of consultants. According to RERA’s legal team, these provisions form a comprehensive framework that governs the Authority’s operations, and any action that falls outside this framework is unwarranted.

The opposition to the EOW investigation also highlights the controversy surrounding the leadership of RERA. Srivastava, a 1984-batch IAS officer, was appointed as chairman of RERA following his retirement. His appointment to the role was approved by the Urban Development and Housing Department for a five-year term.

His predecessor, IAS officer and former chief secretary Antony Disa was removed from the position in September 2020, before he could complete his term. Disa’s removal has added further intrigue to the situation, as some speculate whether similar internal tensions might have played a role in the current investigation against Srivastava.

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh RERA is pushing back strongly against the EOW’s inquiry, asserting that the investigation into its chairman is unjustified and that the legal protections provided by the RERA Act shield its officials from such actions.

The situation continues to develop, with the legal and procedural issues surrounding Srivastava’s appointment and the operations of the Authority under the spotlight. As the inquiry proceeds, the Authority’s reliance on the RERA Act’s statutory protections will likely be closely scrutinized, particularly with how it manages appointments and handles its operations in the wake of these serious allegations.