Kejriwal Lied about Assets & Funds in Affidavit before EC, Says Maulik Bharat Trust

Krishnaraj Rao for BeyondHeadlines

Neeraj Saxena and Anuj Kumar Agarwal, office bearers of Maulik Bharat Trust (engaged in voters’ awareness activities) have accused Arvind Kejriwal of omitting to mention many of his assets, and seriously undervalued a property worth Rs 5.5 crore. The duo have filed a complaint against him under Section 125 A and Sec 31 of Representation of People’s Act 1950, and Sec 177 of Indian Penal Code, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Earlier, they sought to file a PIL on this cause, but were directed by Delhi High Court to pursue it before the appropriate forum; hence the complaint before a magistrate.

While filing his nomination papers on 16th November 2013, Arvind was required to swear by an affidavit which declares the true and correct address as well as the valuation of all his moveable and immoveable assets, and also his spouse or his dependants. Here, it seems Kejriwal fudged his true address as well as the nature of his assets. He appears to have done so repeatedly and consciously, with intent to deceive.

Gist of Accusations against Kejriwal:

1) GHAZIABAD LAND WORTH RS. 2.2 CR UNDERVALUED TO RS. 5.5 LAKH. Kejriwal deliberated stated the address of one of his properties as “plot No. 11/44 Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh admeasuring 2400 sq. ft.” and declared its approximate current market value as Rs. 55 Lakhs only. This is an incomplete and undeliverable address. The correct address of this property is “Abhay Khand – II, Indian Revenue Services Officer’s Co-operative Group Housing Society, Plot No. 44, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Its current market value is at least Rs. 2.2 crores as the probable current market rate is Rs. 1,00,000/- per sq. metres for Non-Agricultural (Residential) land in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Even as per the more conservative government rates announced vide notification dated 31.7.2013 of District Magistrate Ghaziabad under Uttar Pradesh, Stamp Valuation of Property (Second Amendment) Rules, 2013, the valuation would be Rs.63,000/- per square meter for Abhay Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP. Accordingly, the value of this property would be well over Rs 1.4 crore (222.96 sq.mts. X Rs. 63,000 = Rs. 1,40,46,939.90).

This was done to keep his financial net worth under a figure of Rs. 1 crore and conceal his actual net worth running into several crore rupees, the complainants allege. Willful concealment and suppression of the correct address and the value of the aforesaid property amounts to commission of a criminal offence under Section 125 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 punishable with 6 months of imprisonment and/or fine or both.

2) GHAZIABAD APARTMENT NOT MENTIONED. Kejriwal failed to state the facts of being a beneficiary or owner of another property bearing no. R-902, Girnar Apartments, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP. “A notice bearing no. 631 for disconnection of respondent’s electricity line (Book No. 2014, Connection No. 028342) dt. 27.6.2013 was served in the name of Arvind K. R R/o of R-902, Girnar as printed in Danik Jagran (Page 20 dated 29.6.2013). Sh. Arvind Kejriwal is the beneficiary or owner and; in use and occupation of the above said premises, the details regarding the same have also been concealed and suppressed in his affidavit,” the complainants allege.

3) DELHI ADDRESS WRONGLY GIVEN. Kejriwal also gave a wrong residential address in his affidavit as 41 Bunglow, Hunaman Road, New Delhi-110001. “The accused in reality has never been the resident of the aforementioned address, the same has been given to superficially substantiate his domicile for the purpose of contesting from the New Delhi constituency whereas he continued to reside at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh before and after the Delhi Assemble Elections 2013,” the complainants point out. “Inclusion of the aforementioned address in the electoral rolls as an ‘ordinarily resident’ of the New Delhi Constituency was a deliberate and motivated attempt to eye wash the public authorities and the electors… That misleading information makes it difficult for the electors to verify the credentials of Sh. Arvind Kejriwal’s affidavit filed before the Election Commission of India … which the accused seems to have been taking advantage of.” they add. Declaring false residential address in the Form 6 of The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is a punishable offence U/s 31 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950 punishable with one year imprisonment and/or fine or with both.

4) TWO MORE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN PCRF TRUST DEED, OMITTED FROM EC AFFIDAVIT. Kejriwal formed a trust as its “settlor” on 19.12.2006 vide trust deed bearing no. 14265 in the name of Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF), wherein he gave his residential address as “403-L, Girnar, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP” and registered the said trust deed at another address of “5/7, basement, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110022”. Ownership of both these properties and the donations made to the trust and the value of the same, have also not been declared in his affidavit filed before the Election Commission of India.

5) RS 25 LAKHS COLLECTED FROM 468 DODGY DONORS. In 2012, an auditor’s report of PCRF in schedule 10 under the heading of “notes on accounts” clause no. 4 says: “the trust has refunded Rs. 25,44,074.00 to 468 persons due to lack of information of donor”. “The collection and refund of donation amounts to someone whose identity is not clear is also extremely suspicious and qualifies to be a serious financial fraud”, say the complainants. It has also been learnt through sources that purpose of research for which the trust was formed was never accomplished, since the same was only used as a financial arm to collect funds on behalf of India Against Corruption and later the funds were used for the formation of a Political Party”, the complainants allege.

6) INSURANCE POLICIES, FIXED DEPOSITS ETC. APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. Kejriwal “concealed and suppressed” his, his wife’s and his children’s’ Insurance Policies, Investment, Fixed Deposits, etc. which he ought to have declared in his affidavit. “It is highly improbable for any prudent person not to invest in a Life Insurance Policy, Fixed Deposits or any futuristic investments for themselves, their spouse or their dependents. The non-disclosure of the same raises an extreme amount of suspicion on the intention of the accused to keep his net worth below a certain level and create an impression of an extremely austere personality”, say the complainants.


Most Popular

To Top