“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.
Updated on: April 13, 2014 23:45 IST
