RNEL seeks CBI, CVC probe into complaint against L&T Defence on warship project
New Delhi, June 15: Reliance Naval & Engineering Ltd. (RNEL) has sought a probe by the CBI and the CVC into a complaint it has lodged with the Defence Ministry alleging that a senior Indian Navy officer is favouring its business rival, Larsen & Toubro, in big-ticket defence deals.
Sources told that, in its complaint, RNEL has alleged that the naval officer, whose son is employed with the L&T Defence at its Pune unit, passed on sensitive information to L&T pertaining to the prestigious Rs 20,000 crore (almost $3 billion) project to construct four warships for the Indian Navy.
While the Defence Ministry has reportedly initiated an internal inquiry on the complaint, RNEL has now sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Vigilance Commission into the matter, the sources said.
RNEL's complaint reportedly mentions Vice Admiral D. Deshpande who, it has alleged, is acting virtually as "an agent" of L&T and is passing on vital information pertaining to the sensitive defence projects to the company.
The complaint also alleged that the Vice Admiral's son was going to pursue an MBA degree that would be paid for and "sponsored by L&T".
According to a media report, Deshpande has clarified his position in the matter to the Defence Ministry top brass, details of which are not available.
In Mumbai, L&T's Whole Time Director J.D. Patil rejected the contentions made in the RNEL complaint and said that it was for the Defence Ministry to respond to such allegations.
On the employment of Vice Admiral Deshpande's son in L&T Defence, he said around 80 percent staff comprise retired defence personnel for the technical expertise they possess.
"Our recruitment processes are very stringent and based purely on merits, not any other consideration, and our organisational ethos don't permit such things," Patil told here.
While the matter is under a probe, the warships project is in a limbo since 2017 when RNEL and L&T Defence were shortlisted by the Defence Ministry for award of the contract.
To be awarded under the "Make In India" initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it would be the biggest warship project incorporating Landing Platform Docks for transporting troops, equipments, tanks and fighter choppers across the seas.
While the RNEL has joined hands with the France's Naval Group, L&T Defence has roped in Spain's Navantia Group for the mega-project, with the foreign partners contributing by way of design and technology for the ships to be constructed in an Indian shipbuilding yard.
Incidentally, RNEL has contended that there is a move to split the project into two by awarding a couple of ships to L&T Defence, which it contends would be "detrimental to the interest of the country" and Indian Navy.
Until clarity emerges on the charges by RNEL against L&T Defence, the next crucial step in the procurement process -- opening the commercial bids to determine the final winner from among the two contenders -- will hang fire indefinitely, and entail further delays to the time-bound project, the sources said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
