One of the strong emphasis of the complaint lays stress on the failure of the CM to also suspend Ramakant Shetgaonkar, Technical Assistant, Department of Mines and Geology who has been mentioned in the Shah Commission. However, in the police complaint Tamankar stresses on pages 397 and 399 of the Shah Commission ‘Goa Illegal Mining Scam – Report’. While pages 397 and 399 certainly mentions R Shetgaonkar’s name, the panel notes that he action are not questionable but has been mentioned as a reference.
Here is what page 397 says;
“A note put up by Shri Shetgaonkar (Technical Assistant) has clearly stated that original Forms J is not found and the file has been restructured. Further, it is also noted that the other documents like challan of Rs.500/- is not available for knowing the exact date of filing of the ‘Form J’ for T.C.”
Here is what page 399 states;
“On going through the office records, it is seen that entry recorded at serial No.74 shows the mining concession under T.C. No.4/51 to be located in Cavrem village whereas the said mining lease is located in Molcornem village.”
The aforesaid note reveals that original mining concession under T.C. No. 4/51 was located at a different place.
4. On perusal of the notings of the DMG file for T.C. No. 4/51 it seems, a late entry has been made on the note- sheet page 1 signed by Shri R. Shetgaonkar (Technical Assistant). The entry is reproduced here as “Further we may also request to produce title of concession, as this has been reflected in thename of one Shri Sarmalkar in the Abolition Act.” Further, there is also mention on page 2 of the note-sheet of the said file that Shri Dayanand Neugui has produced a copy of Sale Deed of Mining Concession entered between Shri Vassudeva N. Sarmalkar and Zoiram B. Neugui, in Portuguese language. It is stated in the said note-sheet that the original documents / records are not traceable and present file has been reconstructed by collecting documents.”
Strangely, Tamankar’s complaint excludes the pages 353 where Shah Commission panel actually questions certain actions of R Shetgaonkar.
Here is what page 353 states;
“Meanwhile, it is noted from the file having mentioned that the lessee has credited Rs.500/- through Challan Bearing No.130/AP/98 on 30-12-1998. The payment is credited in the Bank and it has never been brought to the knowledge of the Department. Further, the genuineness of payment has never been verified. Hence, the question of accepting payment by the Department does not arise. Further, under Rule 24A of the MCR, 1960, there is no provision to consider the renewal application based on any other document than ‘Form J’. Hence, notings made by one R.Shetgavkar, Technical Assistant on 24/10/2000 stating that the lessee has paid renewal fees as per the provisions of Rule 24A (10) of the MCR, 1960, does not stand on scrutiny of law. Notings of this nature are misguiding and misconceived.”
Whether Tamankar’s complaint can stand the test of the inquiry only time will tell, but it appears that the hype created by Tamankar on the complaint itself appears to have featured references to the Shah Commission report that point no fingers to Shetgaonkar. Congress Goa too has now back-tracked on the complaint saying Tamankar has done it in his individual capacity.