New Delhi [India], August 21 : The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday issued a production warrant for accused Pankaj Verma, who is currently in judicial custody. The court also remanded Ankit Shrivastava to judicial custody following his police custody, after he was produced before the court at the end of a two-day police remand.
Link Special Judge Ruby Neeraj Kumar remanded Ankit Shrivastava to judicial custody until September 3. The court also issued a production warrant for Pankaj Verma for August 25.
Other accused, including former minister Satyender Jain and four others, remain in judicial custody in connection with the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) scam case.
It is alleged that the investigation revealed that the technical proposal for the augmentation of the Rohini STP from 15 MGD to 25 MGD was altered by the then-Minister, who approved an enhancement to 30 MGD without any technical recommendation or feasibility study.
Similarly, the Rohini and Narela STPs were included in the project, while the Okhla Phase-V STP was excluded, resulting in an estimated cost escalation of approximately Rs 123 crore. The Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) contends that these arbitrary decisions by Minister (Jain) were taken without adequate technical justification.
The ACB sought the issuance of a production warrant for Pankaj Verma and the judicial custody of Ankit Shrivastava.
Shrivastava had previously been remanded to two days of police custody for the recovery of his mobile phone, which was allegedly used to share DJB corrigendums through WhatsApp chats with other accused individuals.
It was submitted that Shrivastava shared the WhatsApp messages in 2021 and subsequently disposed of the phone in 2023. However, the chats were recovered from the phone of Raj Kumar Kurra.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, appearing for Shrivastava, opposed the application for judicial remand, stating that no new material had surfaced during the two days of custody. He argued that the situation remained unchanged from August 5, when Ankit Shrivastava first joined the investigation.
The ACB has arrested Satyendar Kumar Jain (former Minister of Water, GNCTD), Udit Prakash Rai (IAS, former CEO, Delhi Jal Board), Nagendra Yadav (Proprietor, M/s AN Enterprises), Raja Kumar Kurra (Owner, M/s Euroteck Environement Pvt. Ltd), Pankaj Verma (Proprietor, M/s Srijanhar), and Ankit Shrivastava (a consultant with the Delhi Jal Board).
Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat appeared for the ACB and sought the judicial custody of Ankit Shrivastava.
He submitted that the investigation established that Nagendra Yadav acted as an intermediary between officials of the DJB and representatives of Euroteck. KVNS Rao (of Euroteck) handed a letter to Nagendra Yadav, who subsequently delivered it to the office of Satyender Jain.
It is further alleged that Satyendar Kumar Jain then directed Ankit Srivastava to coordinate with KVNS Rao regarding a meeting after sharing Sh. KVNS Rao's visiting card. Screenshots of the chat between Sh. K.V.N.S. Rao and Sh. Ankit Shrivastav were subsequently recovered from the mobile phone of Sh. K.V.N.S. Rao.
The investigation also revealed a dilution of environmental norms prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). While the CPCB had prescribed eight mandatory parameters for treated effluent quality, only five parameters were incorporated into the tender documents. Important mandatory parameters such as pH, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and Total Nitrogen (N-Total) were omitted, thereby diluting environmental safeguards to grant an undue advantage to the technology provider, the ACB alleged.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj submitted that it is the duty of the investigating officer to establish the legal necessity of an arrest. He argued that when Ankit Shrivastava appeared before the investigating officer on August 5, the officer concealed this fact.
Bhardwaj further argued that this was not a case where Ankit Shrivastava was produced before the court within 24 hours of being summoned, as Ankit was called in at 10:00 AM before being formally produced. He asserted that the grounds of arrest provided were not valid grounds in the eyes of the law.
During the hearing on August 19, Satyendra Jain addressed the court directly, stating that the government had decided to clean the Yamuna River and that augmenting existing STPs was half the cost of building new ones. He stated that he held eight ministerial portfolios and was bound to accept technical advice.
Jain noted that when tenders were floated, the tender amount was around Rs 1,546 crore. Opposing the ACB's contentions, Jain stated that a minister is not connected with corrigendums, adding that he was removed from office on May 30, held no portfolio thereafter, and that the work was awarded six months after his exit.
Jain further argued that while Rs 1,546 crore was termed highly inflated by investigators, an estimate of Rs 1,938 crore was considered acceptable. He stated that if the price had been inflated, the tender could have been re-issued, adding that if the tender was acceptable at Rs 1,938 crore, it was certainly acceptable at Rs 1,546 crore. Jain called it a classic case where he was falsely roped in.
Countering Jain, the ACB alleged that Ankit Shrivastava sent the corrigendum to the owner of the company despite having no official business with the STP, yet he joined meetings, offered advice, and shared official documents.
The ACB also submitted that sludge treatment was deliberately separated from the STP project scope to invite separate tenders, and that corrigendums were uploaded only to the DJB website rather than being published in newspapers.
Additionally, it was submitted that ₹2.7 crore was transferred to Srijanhar from Eurotech without any actual work being performed. Out of this amount, ₹1.22 crore was transferred to another company.
The ACB further alleged that ₹61 lakh was sent to Udit Prakash through banking channels on January 19, 2023, under the guise of a loan agreement dated January 10, 2023. Udit Prakash subsequently attended two meetings in his capacity as CEO of the DJB.
Rebutting the arguments, Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj stated that if the prosecution wanted to trace the proceeds of crime, they must present clear proof to the court rather than changing their stand. He argued that the ACB must specify to the court what new evidence was gathered regarding Ankit Shrivastava after August 5.