<p>Suspended IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt on Saturday shot off another letter to the Nanavati-Mehta Commission demanding cross examination of Chief Minister Narendra Modi.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In his letter, Bhatt said: “Without summoning and examining the chief minister, the conclusion that there is no material against him, is manifestly premature and more so when in a case like this when the person concerned whose role is to be mandatorily inquired into.”<br /><br />He added: “If the said conclusion or opinion of the Commission as noted by the honourable high court is correct, then that would in fact present the Commission with an even greater responsibility and opportunity to depart from the prescribed procedure.<br /><br />“As it is when the Commission has come to a definite finding that ‘no other material has come on record’, then the commission will be well within its domain to ask the state government to place all those relevant facts and representations which compelled the state government to enlarge the terms of reference in first place,” Bhatt wrote.<br /><br />He said it was only the commission which can now inquire what steps were taken by it to bring forth the necessary and relevant information and records before the commission with a view to enabling the commission to discharge its obligatory duty with respect to the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry.<br /><br />“The fact that the scope of inquiry was enlarged by the state government, there is a corresponding duty and responsibility upon the political components, members of state government to be forthcoming with information by way of affidavits and clearly the same has not been done,” Bhatt alleged.</p>
<p>Suspended IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt on Saturday shot off another letter to the Nanavati-Mehta Commission demanding cross examination of Chief Minister Narendra Modi.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In his letter, Bhatt said: “Without summoning and examining the chief minister, the conclusion that there is no material against him, is manifestly premature and more so when in a case like this when the person concerned whose role is to be mandatorily inquired into.”<br /><br />He added: “If the said conclusion or opinion of the Commission as noted by the honourable high court is correct, then that would in fact present the Commission with an even greater responsibility and opportunity to depart from the prescribed procedure.<br /><br />“As it is when the Commission has come to a definite finding that ‘no other material has come on record’, then the commission will be well within its domain to ask the state government to place all those relevant facts and representations which compelled the state government to enlarge the terms of reference in first place,” Bhatt wrote.<br /><br />He said it was only the commission which can now inquire what steps were taken by it to bring forth the necessary and relevant information and records before the commission with a view to enabling the commission to discharge its obligatory duty with respect to the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry.<br /><br />“The fact that the scope of inquiry was enlarged by the state government, there is a corresponding duty and responsibility upon the political components, members of state government to be forthcoming with information by way of affidavits and clearly the same has not been done,” Bhatt alleged.</p>