EXPLAINED: Delhi Excise Policy 'Scam' Case With Deputy CM Manish Sisodia Named In CBI FIR

Delhi Excise Policy 'Scam' Case: Know about the allegations in the scam case being probed by CBI along with details pertaining to the policy touted by AAP as a reform for the retail liquor sector.

Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia addresses a press conference | Congress workers hold placards during their protest outside AAP's office in New Delhi on Saturday.

Source : PTI

New Delhi: The Delhi Excise Policy 'scam' case has been making headlines and once again gained attention with the CBI raid at Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia's residence along with searches at 30 other locations in seven states and Union territories on Friday.

The CBI has named 13 people and two companies in its FIR registered on August 17 under IPC sections related to criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In addition to Deputy CM Sisodia, who also holds the excise portfolio, the central agency has named as accused then excise commissioner Arava Gopi Krishna, then deputy excise commissioner Anand Kumar Tiwari, assistant excise commissioner Pankaj Bhatnagar and nine businessmen.

What Is Delhi Excise Policy Scam Case?

The scam case pertains to alleged corruption in the framing and implementation of Delhi's excise policy 2021-22 which paved way for the entry of private firms into the retail liquor sector. The accusations involve extending undue favours to the lincencees, waiver/reduction in licence fee, and extension of L-1 licence without approval in return of bribes.

It is said that the illegal gains from these acts were diverted to the public servants.

The CBI has claimed in its FIR that a liquor trader paid Rs 1 crore to a company managed by an associate of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.

According to the central agency, Sisodia and other accused public servants recommended and took decisions pertaining to the excise policy 2021-22 without the approval of competent authority with "an intention to extend undue favours to the licencees post tender".

It is alleged that Vijay Nair, former CEO of Only Much Louder, an entertainment and event management company, Manoj Rai, a former employee of Pernod Ricard, Amandeep Dhal, owner of Brindco Spirits, and Sameer Mahendru, owner of Indospirits, were actively involved in irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy brought out in November last year.

Amit Arora, Director of Buddy Retail Pvt. Limited in Gurgaon, Dinesh Arora and Arjun Pandey are said to be the "close associates" of Sisodia and were "actively involved in managing and diverting the undue pecuniary advantage collected from liquor licensees" for the accused public servants.

The CBI has alleged that Radha Industries managed by Dinesh Arora received Rs 1 crore from Sameer Mahendru of Indospirits.

"Source further revealed that Arun Ramchandra Pillai used to collect undue pecuniary advantage from Sameer Mahendru for onward transmission to the accused public servants through Vijay Nair. A person named Arjun Pandey has once collected a huge cash amount of about Rs 2-4 crore from Sameer Mahendru on behalf of Vijay Nair," CBI claimed in its FIR, as quoted by news agency PTI.

As per the CBI, Sunny Marwah's Mahadev Liquors was granted L-1 licence under the policy. Marwah, who was also on the board of firms of the deceased liquor baron Ponty Chadha, is accused of regularly paying bribes to the accused public servants as he was in close contact with them.

"It was alleged that irregularities were committed including in modifications in Excise Policy, extending undue favours to the lincencees, waiver/reduction in licence fee, extension of L-1 licence without approval, etc.," the CBI's spokesperson informed in a statement.

It was further alleged that illegal gains from these acts were diverted to the public servants concerned by private parties by making false entries in their books of accounts, he said, as per PTI.

Besides Delhi, searches were conducted in Gurugram, Chandigarh, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Bengaluru, which, so far, have led to the recovery of incriminating documents, articles, digital records, etc., the CBI's spokesperson said.

Delhi Excise Policy 2021 

The Excise Policy 2021-22 was prepared by a Delhi government committee. The ruling AAP touted it as a new reform for the retail liquor sector aiming to boost the revenue to the tune of Rs 9,500 crore.

Under the new excise policy, the Delhi government committed to moving out of the retail liquor sector, paving way for the entry of private firms. In November last year, a Delhi government official told PTI that for the first time, all the state-owned liquor stores were going to be shut and the business would be completely transferred to the private players. 

The policy was vetted by a group of ministers formed on February 5, 2021, its draft was okayed by the GoM, and accepted by the Delhi cabinet on March 22, 2021.

The final draft of the policy was placed before Delhi LG Anil Baijal for his approval on May 24 last year. It was finally approved by the L-G on November 15, 2021, with a condition that liquor vends in non-conforming areas can open only after permission of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

"Under the new excise policy, 849 shops were to be opened across Delhi, including in unauthorised areas. The LG did not object to the proposal and approved it," PTI quoted Sisodia as saying.

However, as per Sisodia, the LG changed his stand and introduced a condition that permission from the DDA and the MCD would be needed for opening liquor shops in unauthorised areas. "As a result of this change of stand by the LG, the shops could not be opened in unauthorised areas, leading to a loss of revenue of thousands of crores to the government. On the other hand, the shops that opened witnessed a huge income," he added.

The BJP and the Congress have been opposing the policy and sought central agencies to probe the scheme. The ruling AAP has maintained that there has been no wrongdoing and the probe would not yield any result.

The FIR was registered in this case on a reference from the office of Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena routed through the Union Home Ministry.

(With Agency Inputs)