Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on Monday moved an application in the Supreme Court accusing Union Minister for Shipping and Transport T R Baalu of pushing the controversial Sethusamudram project for his family's private and pecuniary interest.
Swamy, who sought to make Baalu a party to the pending petitions relating to the project, claimed that he has unearthed considerable material against the minister for being instrumental in pushing through the development and execution of the project in its present form for his private interest.
He alleged that Baalu and some members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam including Kanimozhi, Rajya Sabha MP and daughter of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Karunanidhi, will benefit from the project as they have financial interests in the firms involved in the venture.
Baalu and his wife allegedly have a share in Meenam Fisheries Ltd, whose vessels have been engaged in the project, the application said.
It said Kanimozhi has shares in Westgate Logistics (P) Ltd, the shipping company which is engaged not only in stevedoring but in services like shipment consolidation and deconsolidation, global freight forwarding and customs management, regional warehousing and distribution network in the project area.
Swamy said since there was alleged conflict of interest between Baalu's private business and the impartial performance of his duties as a minister who is connected to the project, he should be made a respondent in the matter.
Meanwhile, a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan posted for April 30 the hearing on the matter which was earlier listed for April 29.
Some of the petitioners had complained that the committee appointed by the Centre to review the project was not providing them the required documents, but the Bench refused to pass orders on the plea for supply of documents raised by other petitioners.
"We have not appointed the committee. The committee is not formed under the direction of the court. We can also not insist the parties involved in the matter provide documents submitted to the committee to each other," the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and M K Sharma, said.
The Centre, which on February 29 filed the fresh affidavit after the flip-flop over Ram Setu, has now decided to engage noted jurist and senior advocate Fali Nariman to seek clearance for going ahead with the Rs 2,087 crore project.
In its fresh affidavit, the Centre has sought clearance for going ahead with the Sethusamudram project on the same alignment, saying issues of faith cannot be resolved through scientific evidence.
The 60-page affidavit cleared by the Cabinet Committee of Political Affairs, which was chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has said the opposition to the project which started two years ago was 'misconceived' and 'unsubstantiated' and the court should 'refrain from interdicting'.
The Centre said that a committee of eminent persons appointed on October 5, 2007, re-examined the entire project, including the six possible alignments, to conclude that alignment no. 6 was the 'best alternative' and to alter channel alignment at this stage would be 'infeasible' as it would lead to huge losses to the public exchequer.
'Alignment no. 6 is backed by sound environmental, navigational, engineering and trans-boundary considerations.
'Therefore, the assertion that the alignment has been arbitrarily resorted to and other viable alternatives have been deliberately left out for mala fide reasons is wrong and baseless,' the affidavit has said, seeking vacation of the apex court's interim orders directing the Centre not to damage Ram Setu.
On the opposition to the Sethusamudram project in general and Ram Setu in particular on archaeological, historical and cultural grounds, it said 'no archaeological studies have been conducted and it is not possible to predict the outcome in the event that such investigations are carried out'.
Leaving it to the apex court to resolve the contentious issues about the project on the basis of available evidence, the Centre said the Rs 2,087 crore project was considered and pursued by successive governments of varying political ideologies cutting across party lines since 1996.
In its affidavit, the Centre said, 'The issues of faith, except those in which historicity of an event is subject to adjudication, cannot be resolved by taking recourse to science or scientific evidence.'
