Snoopgate: Gujarat government acted in discriminatory manner says Pradeep Sharma

New Delhi: Facing allegations from the Gujarat government in the snoogate controversy, suspended IAS officer Pradeep Sharma today told the Supreme Court that state government was acting in a discriminatory manner against him. Countering state government's affidavit containing various allegations like “illicit relationships” and involvement in criminal cases, he said Chief Minister Narendra Modi employed the entire might of the State Administration to “victimize, intimidate, terrorize and persecute him, including registration of the baseless FIRs and his consequent incarceration”.He said there is a clear case of discrimination as FIR has been registered against him for alleged misuse of mobile number belonging to a private company but no such action has been taken against the Chief Minister, who used the mobile number owned by another private company on which the lady in question was in touch with him.“It is most respectfully submitted that while one of the FIRs pertaining to the Petitioner (Sharma) herein, contains allegation for mis-using the mobile number ‘xxxxxxxx99' which belongs to a private company i.e., M/s Welspun. “However, the State Government has chosen not to act against Respondent No. 3 (Modi) who used another mobile number bearing no. .... It is submitted that this number was owned by Reliance Industries Limited and the address given to the Service Provider was - Vraj, Opp. HDFC Bank, Beside Chandanbala Tower, Near Suvidha Shopping Centre, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007.“The telephone in question was activated on June 29, 2007 and and de-activated on March 8, 2011 and was in use during the relevant period of 2009. This is a clear case of discrimination and malafide against the Petitioner (Sharma) and an abuse of the official position by the Respondent No. 3 (Modi) to settle the personal grievance against the Petitioner herein.“The Petitioner respectfully submits that the lady architect was regularly in touch with the Petitioner and shared details of the conversations she was having with Respondent No. 3, and it was at the behest of Respondent No. 3 that she visited the Petitioner in Bhavnagar to explore possibilities to start a new State funded project as promised to her by Respondent No. 3 (Modi).“It was only after this clarification put forth by the Petitioner that the State changed its stance and came up with an explanation of financial transactions and issue of moral conduct to justify its unlawful acts. “That the Petitioner herein is a witness to the text messages (SMS) exchanged between the lady architect and Respondent No. 3 and it was through this exchange that the Petitioner noted the details of the phone number which is in fact registered in the name of Reliance Industries, and was being used by Respondent No. 3 for his own personal use,” Sharma said in his rejoinder affidavit to the state governments affidavit filed on April 1. The snooping controversy broke out when two news portals released CDs of purported telephonic conversations between Modi's aide Amit Shah, who was then state Home Minister, and two top state police officials relating to snooping on a woman in 2009.The conversations, purportedly between August and September 2009, do not specifically mention Modi by name but refers to a ‘saheb', which the portals claimed was the Gujarat Chief Minister at whose instance the snooping was done, a charge denied by Shah.The state government had filed its response on a petition filed by Sharma seeking CBI probe in snoopgate controversy. Sharma, a 1984 batch IAS officer, had in 2011 filed the petition for handing over the cases against him to CBI and in November 2013, he took the controversy over the snoopgate to the apex court.Countering the allegation levelled by Sharma, the state government had said that it came to know several facts regarding large-scale suspicious financial transactions, amassing of benami properties by him and about his illicit relationship after his phones were kept under surveillance in 2009.The court had earlier refused Sharma's plea to allow him to travel to the United States to meet his wife and son, who are American citizens.Refuting all allegations, Sharma said “The State Government in the reply affidavit does not make any clear unambiguous averment denying the veracity of the tapes. “Modi too interestingly has chosen to remain silent. He has not filed any affidavit in response to the petition denying his liaison with the lady architect or denying the veracity of the transcripts,” Sharma said. “It is unprecedented for any State Government to level such allegations, of a personal nature, which have no relevance or bearing with the lies in question, against Sharma in a matter before this Court,” the rejoinder affidavit said. He contended that the State Government has deliberately concealed the fact that Welspun, which is closely associated with Modi was indeed engaged in ‘criminal' and ‘anti-national' activities.“With regards to the alleged mobile conversations of Sharma with several married women, as alleged in the reply affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the transcripts of the mobile conversations have not been delivered to him and in absence thereof, he is unable to respond effectively,” Sharma said.The state government had filed its response on a petition filed by Sharma seeking CBI probe in snoopgate controversy. Sharma, a 1984 batch IAS officer, had in 2011 filed the petition for handing over the cases against him to CBI and in November 2013, he took the controversy over the snoopgate to the apex court.Countering the allegation levelled by Sharma, the state government had said that it came to know several facts regarding large-scale suspicious financial transactions, amassing of benami properties by him and about his illicit relationship after his phones were kept under surveillance in 2009.The court had earlier refused Sharma's plea to allow him to travel to the United States to meet his wife and son, who are American citizens.Refuting all allegations, Sharma said “The State Government in the reply affidavit does not make any clear unambiguous averment denying the veracity of the tapes. “Modi too interestingly has chosen to remain silent. He has not filed any affidavit in response to the petition denying his liaison with the lady architect or denying the veracity of the transcripts,” Sharma said. “It is unprecedented for any State Government to level such allegations, of a personal nature, which have no relevance or bearing with the lies in question, against Sharma in a matter before this Court,” the rejoinder affidavit said. He contended that the State Government has deliberately concealed the fact that Welspun, which is closely associated with Modi was indeed engaged in ‘criminal' and ‘anti-national' activities.“With regards to the alleged mobile conversations of Sharma with several married women, as alleged in the reply affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the transcripts of the mobile conversations have not been delivered to him and in absence thereof, he is unable to respond effectively,” Sharma said.