The MP kept the funds for safe-keeping with himself, Dehadrai is quoted as telling the ethics panel.
NEW DELHI
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s claims before the Parliament Ethics Committee that there were no cash transactions involving businessman Darshan Hiranandani and her, were countered by complainant and her former friend Jai Anant Dehadrai, who said he had heard phone conversations between the TMC MP and the tycoon and also witnessed a third MP discussing and making elaborate plans with Moitra on how he would assist her in keeping the funds that were to come, via hawala from Dubai, from Hiranandani.
“This gentleman, a Member of Parliament, kept these funds for safe keeping with himself,” Dehadrai is quoted as telling the ethics panel, shows the report tabled in Parliament.
Dehadrai also told the committee, headed by Vinod Kumar Sonkar, that he was able to identify about 50 questions out of the 61 that Moitra had asked on behalf of Hiranandani.
“I had personally witnessed many conversations pertaining to these questions that were ultimately posted directly by Hiranandani himself,” he said.
The complainant against Moitra said these questions made it clear that the objective of asking these was not to further any interest of her constituency. The objective was to further the interest of one particular business enterprise by the name of Hiranandani Group and its entities… Another objective was to attack the rival of Hiranandani which was the Adani Group, said Dehadrai.
“By doing this, Moitra’s objective appeared to be to gain political mileage or to get political fame. By any means, she wanted to drag the Prime Minister’s name into anything to do with the Adani Group. That was her main objective,” said Dehadrai.
While claiming that he never met Hiranandani, Dehadrai told the Ethics Committee that Moitra had a very secretive relationship with the business tycoon.
“They would talk secretly on the phone between each other. They would have secret meetings in Dubai and other parts of the country,” he said, adding that he had cautioned her against meeting “unsavoury characters”.
Interestingly, the entire controversy would not have come into public domain if the earpiece of Moitra’s phone was not faulty during the period she was in contact with the Dubai-based businessman. Dehadrai told the Ethics Committee, “When Hiranandani would call Moitra, at that time, she was using a phone the earpiece of which was broken. She had to take calls on the speaker. So, I would end up hearing these conversations, not wanting to hear them but I had no choice. As I would be in close proximity, I would hear these conversations.”
To a specific question as to whether he advised Moitra to refrain from engaging in criminal conspiracy, Dehadrai said, “ I told her that this was not the right thing to be doing; that she could get into trouble. I also told her that this could affect national security, especially since somebody was logging in from abroad, it could easily be tracked. I had told her on multiple occasions to which she had told me that it did not matter.”
The Ethics Committee also asked Dehadrai whether he lived in the house/bungalow of Moitra but he said that he did not live in that house. He, however, confirmed being her friend. “I was a very close friend of Moitra for some time. Then, we parted ways amicably. Till such a point, these disputes began where she was trying to arm-twist me to give up custody of my dog.”
He was also questioned about the three-year delay in filing the complaint, but he said it took him time to collect material and evidence. Also, he claimed that there was no law of limitation that prevented him from filing the complaint.
Dehadrai was also questioned on his motive for choosing Nishikant Dubey, MP, for forwarding his complaint to the Lok Sabha. He claimed to the panel, “I have never met Dr Nishikant Dubey or ever spoken to him even on the phone or messaged him. I have had no contact with him.”
He said Parliament rules required him to get his complaint routed through an MP for being taken up by the Ethics Committee so he sent a copy of his complaint to Dubey, an “outstanding and ethical member of parliament”.
On being enquired why he did not disclose the nature of his ongoing personal disputes with Moitra at the time of making the complaint against her, Dehadrai said she had made two police complaints against him. “The two complaints contained details of trespassing. The objective was to put pressure on me and coerce me into signing a document and agreement by which she wanted me to hand over the ownership and custody of a pet dog that she and I were sharing. Subsequently, on 4 October, Moitra voluntarily withdrew those two complaints unconditionally.”