This information was obtained through Right to Information (RTI) and was given to the Mid-Day newspaper by a Mumbai-based RTI activist Anil Galgali.
The disclosure of this information about the new chief minister role in obtaining a flat by dubious means has created a sensation in the Congress camp.
Galgali claimed that official information sought and received by him shows that Chavan bought a property meant for the weaker section of society, worth Rs. four million in Wadala suburb for a mere Rs. four hundred thousand, but did not mention it in his affidavit submitted during the Rajya Sabha elections.
“In the documents obtained Chavan had declared his average monthly income to be Rs.76,000 and was allotted the flat in Bhakti Park, Venus building No. 12, measuring 1032.7 sq ft on May 20, 2003. The name of Chavan was displayed on the society notice board and it was also mentioned that Chavan had paid his society dues till year 2011.
While Chavan, who was an member of Parliament based in Delhi, had quoted his monthly income as Rs.76,000 in the application, the ration card copy issued in his late mother Pramilabai Dajisaheb Chavan’s name showed the annual family income as just one hundred thousand rupees.
However, for a family to fall under the weaker section the annual income should have been under one hundred and fifty thousand rupees in 2003. And Chavan’s income clearly was far more than that.
The criteria to get benefit under the CM quota is that a person having an annual income under one hundred and fifty thousand rupees can apply for a house under the weaker section of society chief minister’s quota (2, 5 and 10 percent) schemes.
Arab News tried several times to contact Chavan and seek his side of story, but his aides said that he was unavailable and would clarify to the media on the issue later.
Speaking about his sensational disclosure, Galgali said, “The only reason to file an RTI in December 2008 was to get the list of people who had obtained flats under the chief minister’s quota. I had information about rampant misuse of the scheme to benefit certain people from well-to-do families depriving the rights of poor. Initially the Urban Development Department was reluctant to share information. I had to then challenge it in an appeal and finally after two months in February 2009, I got the list of beneficiaries since 1984 to February 2009, including names of journalists, freedom fighters, politicians, artists, etc. It is a mere coincidence that I had sought the details of Chavan, as I knew he was with the PMO office and based in Delhi. On checking the documents, I found the irregularities and hence decided to expose it.”
