news details |
|
|
| Attempt to grab temple land: To whom BJP leaders want to give undue benefits? | | It is now an open secret that most of the BJP leaders in J&K are unofficially working as liaison officers of some businessmen outside J&K from the very first day when the party had formed government with PDP. | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 7: Even as tender jointly issued by Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) and Jammu Development Authority (JDA) for constructing parking place at Jammu’s historic Panjbakhtar temple has been withdrawn after peoples’ outcry but demand for exposing private players to whom some BJP leaders wanted to give undue benefit is raising momentum. Credible sources said the biggest parking spot in the premises of the Panjbakhtar temple was not proposed to ease traffic problems in Jammu city but BJP leaders were allegedly hand-in-glove with some private players from outside the State to whom they wanted to give benefits at the cost of the religious sentiments of the people. Opposition Congress party has reason to demand a judicial probe because it was a big scam. During the PDP-BJP government in J&K, most of the BJP leaders and ex-ministers were playing in the hands of the private players who had allegedly lured them by illegal means. “Parking place in the premises of the temple appeared to the part of the on-going game plan of BJP leaders who are working as liaison officers of some firms operating from outside J&K”, sources said and disclosed that during PDP-BJP regime, private businessmen from outside J&K had influenced BJP’s ministers in the previous government.
Now people of Jammu are demanding a high level inquiry and action against all those involved in an attempt to fraudulently grab the Temple land for constructing a commercial complex and parking plot.
Credible sources said that it was only after suggestion of some private companies- for whom BJP leaders are working as undeclared liaison officers, that tender was floated and the whole process was undertaken quietly without even the knowledge of the caretaker appointed by the Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
