Patna: The Patna High Court has questioned the Enforcement Directorate and Bihar's Special Vigilance Unit over their alleged failure to act against several senior officials linked to a multi-crore tender scam.
The court stated that the authorities appeared to be attempting to save certain individuals while implicating a select few. It also observed that contractor Rishu Shree, who is currently in custody, appeared to be a pawn rather than the kingpin of the alleged money-laundering operation, while the principal actors remained shielded behind the scenes.
Justice Satyavrat Verma made the observations in an order passed on October 15 while hearing a case where Shree is the petitioner and the ED's Patna Zone is the respondent. The Special Vigilance Unit had filed a charge sheet against seven people, including an IAS officer, in June as part of its investigation into the tender scam, following information and evidence shared by the ED.
Shree's firms operate as contractors and subcontractors for multiple Bihar government departments, including Water Resources, Health, Public Health Engineering, Urban Development, Education, Building Construction, and Rural Works. Authorities previously stated he was accused of maintaining links with government officials to secure tenders for illegal personal gains, leading to his arrest by the vigilance unit on May 27.
An earlier ED report alleged that Shree funded foreign trips and other expenses for two IAS officers and their family members in exchange for government contracts. The court noted that the ED had shared information under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act naming six senior government officials, yet the vigilance unit registered a case against only three of them.
The court also questioned why the ED had not summoned several other officials despite possessing information regarding their alleged involvement since February 2025, describing the agency's response as evasive and expressing doubts about the investigation's direction.
Directing the petitioner to add the Special Vigilance Unit as a respondent through its additional director general, the court instructed the agency to file a counter-affidavit explaining why the officials named by the ED were not made accused and detailing the findings regarding their alleged roles. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 27.