Wine and beer shop. Representative image.
Credit: Reuters Photo
Raipur: Chhattisgarh's Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offence Wing (EOW) has lodged an FIR against seven individuals, including an IAS officer from Jharkhand, for allegedly causing a huge loss to the exchequer there by altering the liquor policy in the neighbouring state.
A retired IAS officer from Chhattisgarh is also among the persons named in the FIR lodged under IPC sections 420 (cheating) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) on September 7 in Raipur based on a complaint of Vikas Kumar, a resident of Jharkhand capital Ranchi, an ACB official said on Friday.
Among those booked are former IAS officer Anil Tuteja, businessman Anwar Dheber, ex-managing director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Arunpati Tripathi, IAS officer and former excise commissioner of Chhattisgarh Niranjan Das, and one Arvind Singh -- all from Chhattisgarh -- former excise secretary of Jharkhand Vinay Kumar Choubey and Noida-based businessman Vidhu Gupta, he said.
Besides, director of M/s Sumit Facilities, manpower agencies, liquor supplier agencies and others have been booked in the case, the official said.
Tuteja, Dhebar, Tripathi, Das and Singh are also accused in an alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh which is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate and Chhattisgarh's ACB/EOW. The alleged scam was unearthed during the previous Congress rule in Chhattisgarh (2018-23).
As per the latest FIR, Tuteja, Dhebar, Tripathi and Das formed a syndicate and conspired with officials of Jharkhand to amend the excise policy of that state. They awarded tenders of Indian and foreign liquor supply in the neighbouring state to syndicate members, thereby committing fraud and causing loss of crores of rupees to the Jharkhand government between 2022 and 2023.
Additionally, the syndicate is accused of selling unaccounted domestic liquor with duplicate holograms and unlawfully allotting supply of foreign alcohol to companies close to them. The syndicate fetched illegal commissions to the tune of crores of rupees from such firms, according to the document.
The FIR stated that Tuteja and his syndicate intended to run illegal liquor business in Jharkhand. As part of their plan, Dhebar and Tripathi met with then-Jharkhand excise secretary and other officials in January 2022. They proposed replacing the existing contract system in Jharkhand with a distribution model of Chhattisgarh which helped the syndicate earn illegal money.
In this regard, a meeting was held in Raipur by officers of the Excise Department of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh and a plan was finalized by hatching a criminal conspiracy on how to get illegal profit from the liquor business done in Chhattisgarh in Jharkhand too, said the document.
According to the plan, Dhebar, Tripathi, then-excise secretary of Jharkhand Choubey, a 1999-batch IAS officer, and then-Joint Excise Commissioner Gajendra Singh made preparations to implement the new excise policy in the adjoining state by taking their seniors into confidence, noted the FIR.
A resolution was passed in the Jharkhand Assembly for the purpose, and Tripathi was contracted as a consultant by the Hemant Soren government, it said.
Tripathi prepared a draft of the Indian and foreign liquor sales policy applicable in Chhattisgarh and presented the same to the Jharkhand government. Based on the draft, new excise rules in Jharkhand were notified and implemented, according to the FIR.
For this, Tripathi received Rs 1.25 crore from the Jharkhand government, ACB/EOW alleged.
Under the patronage of Choubey and then-Excise Joint Commissioner Singh, officers of Jharkhand's Excise and Prohibition Department, in order to allot the tender for the liquor supply and placement agencies of Debar and his syndicate, manipulated tendering norms and introduced a condition of having a minimum turnover of Rs 100 crore for two continuous financial years in the mandatory eligibility conditions for granting liquor wholesaler licence, said the FIR.
Due to the contracting system prevalent in Jharkhand in the past, there was no firm in that state which fulfilled the minimum turnover condition, it said.