A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain in a Delhi Jal Board (DJB)-related corruption case lodged against him and five others by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
A reasoned order is yet to be released. It has been revealed that Jain, along with former DJB CEO Udit Rai, arbitrarily changed tender proposals without proper study or technical recommendation,” the ACB said. The submissions were made by Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat. Ltd. “Satyendra Jain played a vital role in the manipulation process and has criminal antecedent. “During the meeting, it was decided that a pilot run of Euroteck’s proposed technology would be conducted at the Coronation STP to test its efficiency. However, the ACB alleged, “Neither the pilot run was conducted nor were both technologies ultimately allowed in the tender. Instead, the tender process subsequently moved towards permitting only IFAS (Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge) technology with fixed media, which allegedly suited Euroteck”. The agency further alleged that another important decision concerned the capacity of the Rohini STP. The ACB also alleged that subsequent meetings were held between Jain and senior DJB officials without any minutes being recorded.
The relief was granted by Special Judge Digvinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts, who directed that Jain be released on a bail bond of ₹ 2 lakh and two sureties of the like amount. The alleged manipulation began with a meeting on August 31, 2021, attended by Jain, senior DJB officials and representatives of Euroteck, according to the agency. On October 14, 2021, the DJB’s technical wing proposed increasing its capacity from 15 MGD (Million Gallons per Day) to 25 MGD, a proposal which was recommended by then DJB CEO Udit Rai. However, according to the ACB, when Jain granted approval, the capacity was allegedly increased from 15 MGD to 30 MGD without any proper study or technical recommendation. Jain was arrested on August 18 along with five others in the Delhi Jal Board-related corruption case. He and three other accused were subsequently sent to 14 days’ judicial custody, while former DJB contractual consultant Ankit Shrivastava was remanded to two days’ ACB custody.
As a result, the ACB said that Euroteck was able to emerge as the sole technology supplier of IFAS technology with fixed media in the STP tender.
The ACB had opposed Jain’s bail plea, alleging that he played a “vital role in manipulating” DJB sewage treatment plant (STP) tenders to favour a private company. In its 13-page written response, the ACB alleged that Jain, during his tenure as Delhi’s water minister, “connived” with senior DJB officials, including former CEO and co-accused Udit Prakash Rai, to manipulate technical recommendations, the capacity of an STP project and its cost estimates, eventually tailoring tender conditions to favour Euroteck Environmental Pvt. It was also decided that both suspended media and fixed media technologies would be permitted in the tender,” the ACB said. “This increased the estimated cost of the project from ₹ 90 crore to ₹ 147 crore,” the ACB said. Specifications and conditions provided by Euroteck officials were subsequently incorporated into the DJB tender documents through corrigenda, according to the ACB. The agency alleged, “These changes were made in connivance with senior DJB officials and intermediaries and were intended to favour Euroteck, while putting other potential bidders at a disadvantage”. The agency further alleged that Jain was in contact with one Vinod Chauhan, who, according to the ACB, “was connected with hawala operators allegedly involved in the movement of bribe money along with senior DJB officials”.
The agency’s investigation so far has found that three companies were awarded tenders initially estimated at ₹ 1,546 crore, with the value subsequently increasing to ₹ 1,943 crore. It claimed that his role and connivance had emerged during the investigation and the required approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been obtained. The ACB also accused Jain of not cooperating with the investigation. During the proceedings, senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Jain, argued that he had acted on the basis of the recommendations of the technical committee and hence could not attract any liability. “It was a policy decision. I never thrust upon my opinion. It was based on the recommendations of the technical committee”.
Summing up its case against Jain, the ACB alleged that he was not a mere approving authority but “played a vital role in the alleged manipulation of the tender process”. “When questioned about the approvals granted by him in relation to the tender process, Jain maintained that he was not a subject expert and had granted the approvals in good faith,” the ACB said. The case was registered on May 11, 2024, following a complaint by the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance alleging “large-scale irregularities” and “criminal conspiracy” in the tendering process for augmentation and upgradation of DJB STPs. The ACB said that the tender contained restrictive technical specifications favouring Euroteck, thereby limiting competition and giving the company an undue advantage. The court on Tuesday also granted two days of custody to the ACB of Jain’s co-accused Pankaj Verma, observing that the investigation concerned a “multi-layered conspiracy” involving corruption of several crores of rupees and his custody was justified to unearth further evidence.
