Momentum of martyr SKD not converted to MOVEMENT for WHISTLEBLOWERS by SKDF

Kafan Chor Panda & Parivartan In Rs.30,000 Crores Scam

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: R Singh <>
Date: Dec 2, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: Kafan Chor Panda & Parivartan In Rs.30,000 Crores Sca
To:, ,,,,,

Kafan Chor Panda & Parivartan In Rs.30,000 Crores Scam


Mr. Panda,

From the name itself people conclude instantly you belongs to traditional “Kafan Chors” for many thousands of years.


But you are Panda of dirties and filthiest “Aghori” kind who relish eating brain matter of dead bodies, with Aman Mishra collected millions of rupees in the name of Satyendra Kumar Dubey, but used the money to “Sabotage CBI Investigations”, with-held money collected to Dubey family for 3 months, kept Dubey family on begging line until you along with Parivartan had his fathers signature on PIL that directed CBI investigation in to Satyendra Kumar Dubey section of NHAI in Bihar only.


You Betrayed Dubey’s Father, Mother, Brothers and Sisters after gaining their confidence for petty money and political goals. It is worse than worse than father or brother selling their daughter or sister.


It is a well-documented fact that you were specially planted to “Sabotage Investigations In To India’s Biggest Scam”.


This is hundredth time you have abused your seniors instead of either admitting to “Treachery” or post copy of the PIL filed by you and Parivartan.


What’s wrong in admitting facts when Atal Behari Vajpayee betrayed the nation you so important that you continue to deny facts that are well known to people world over?


It is SKDF who blackmailed Satyendra Dubey family by withholding money for 100 days and obtained his fathers signature to investigate Bihar section only as if Satyendra Kumar Dubey was the “Culprit”.


Where does Ravinder Singh fit in the case?


Mal-intensions of SKDF was clear from the posting of 10 scanned copies of 10 mb size of the Satyendra K.Dubey letter which was very difficult to down load when Indian Express had already put “Word File” and SKDF never put it on its website.


You are a traditional lair and cheat people know that.


Yet again I want to emphasize that I was to volunteer to fight for this case in India but at the very first meeting in few minutes instead of discussing “Charges In The Satyendra K.Dubey letter Parivartan and others were singing praises of NHAI projects.”


Few hours later I vented my opposition and anger when SKDF was describing NHAI project than “Great Loot Of Public Money”. I did not associate with “Treachery Of SKDF”.


I predicted that you have filthy “Documentary In Mind” to tell the world that Satyendra Kumar Dubey was born in a backward village that has no electricity and roads etc.


Scandalously signatures of Satyendra Kumar Dubey were enlarged on the film than disclosing all-important contents of the letter and providing expert opinion.


We knew your dirty mind in not sharing the script with experts. Here too you had foreign market in mind where people have no interest in Satyendra Kumar Dubey but want to see the dirty and filthy conditions in which Indians live- Your idea is make crores than explaining the charges framed by him.


I would urge you to go back to your family business and tradition. Sharads, Cremations etc are big business in India.


Ravinder Singh


(P.S. Friends I have gone through the PIL and re-affirm that Panda- Parivartan PIL was most malicious and even Supreme Court judges also pointed out why SKDF are filing this third PIL in Dubey murder case.)   




Re: CBI- SKDF Didn’t File Proper PIL


Mr. Raving Charlatan,

What is your vested interest in trying to mislead people? PIL means public Interest Litigation. You claim that you are expert in that and have done many. Who stopped you to go ahead. You just tried to pass the buck or the gun on elses shoulder and tring to be smart. Still you can do it as a part of public. If you can’t, then stop allegating and stop wasting time on the key boards only. Now a documentary is made and your filthy bla bla started. It’s a woman’s habit of quarreling or pointing accusing finger. Rubbish.


December 3, 2006 Posted by | skdf filings | Leave a comment

CBI- SKDF Didn’t File Proper PIL

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:50:02 -0800 (PST)
From: “Ravinder Singh” <>
Subject: CBI- SKDF Didn’t File Proper PIL

HTML Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]

CBI- SKDF Didn’t File Proper PIL


At a book release function in Delhi at India International Center I asked eminent panelist including Mr. Lyndoh former CEC and Mr. B.R. Lal, IPS, former DGP Haryana why there is no investigation in to the “India’s Biggest Corruption Case in Rs.56,000 Crores NHAI Projects” detailed in the Satyendra Kumar Dubey letter to then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.


And why CBI is crazily investigating a petty Taj Corridor Case, even going after Mayawati’s residential properties but there is no similar response even as both cases are pending before the Supreme Court and dealt by CBI.


The answer was exactly the same that I had stated several times, SKDF did not file proper PIL and didn’t want investigation in to the SKDF letter cum charge-sheet.


I was asked to advise and assist SKDF in organizing a rally in Delhi and in the very first meeting in the office of Shekhar Singh’s on December27, 2006 I objected to the comments of Commander Jaitley that NHAI projects are excellent when Satyendra Kumar Dubey exposed 50% of the money skimmed off by main contractors who subcontracted the work to petty contractors etc and quality of work was poor.


On 27th itself I posted my objections in letter to SKDF many of such mails were deleted. It was exactly a month after the murder of Satyendra Kumar Dubey and general sentiment of the people made in charge of campaign was to refrain from any action that could harm “Shining Campaign”.


Most shocking was the print out available with SKDF representatives but SKDF website carried 10 pages of scanned letter that was 10 mb in size which took over 30 minutes to down load.


I repeatedly asked them to put the word copy on SKDF site and distribute it/ post on notice boards in all colleges. At that time I didn’t know it was available of Indian Express site that continues to maintain it.


I always suspected the documentary promoted by SKDF would not disclose real facts and point a finger at former Prime Minister who was grossly incompetent in upholding the constitutional position in ordering “Cover Up” than serious investigations for the fear of losing elections.


Role of Kalyan Panda, Ashutosh Mishra and Atal Bansal was merely that of ward boys who are asked to clean up the room where post mortem takes place. They are small pinions in the machine of “Corruption” in India.


The kind of money wasted in the region of Rs.30,000 Crores was good enough to renew worn out rails on all trunk railway sections to improve speed and safety of trains.


This is the kind of price India pays for electing “Corrupt and Incompetent” leaders.


I have attached as well posted SKD letter herewith this message.


Ravinder Singh December01, 2006




Word Copy Of Satyendra K. Dubey Letter To PM Of October11, 2002


(…but in reality a great loot of public money.. Satyendra K. Dubey)

>>>In Rs. 56,000 Crores NHAI Projects<<<


The Prime Minister
Republic of India
Prime Minister’s Office
New Delhi – 110 001

Sub: National Highways Development Project (Golden Quadrilateral and North-South, East-West Corridors) —

A dream project of unparalleled importance to the Nation but in reality a great loot of public money because of very poor implementation at every state.

Hon’ble Sir,

Through this letter, I wish to draw your kind attention towards great lapse in the implementation of above project. Since such letters from a common man are not usually treated with due seriousness, I wish to clarify at the outset that this letter is being written after careful thought by a very concerned citizen of the country who is also very closely linked with the project. I request you to kindly go through my brief particulars (attached on a separate sheet to ensure secrecy) before proceeding further.

Instead of writing at length, I would be very specific and to the point highlighting the areas where there have been great lapses and would suggest certain remedies to the best of my abilities. I have been posted both at NHAI, HQ and at site on NH-2 Projects and therefore my direct experience is with NH-2 Projects (World Bank Funded). However, the story is almost same with all other projects which are under implementation and would be no different for forthcoming Projects unless we take certain corrective measures immediately. I have gone through most of the files (even closed ones) dealing with NH-2 projects (their design consultancy, procurement of civil contractors, selection of supervision consultants, the mobilisation of contractors and consultants, etc.). The areas of concern are highlighted below:

Preparation of detail project reports (DPRs) by the Design Consultants

The DPRs prepared by the design consultants are in very poor shape and cannot be implemented in the field without major modifications. It appears that the design consultants have made the designs and drawings with little consideration for the actual ground conditions and the same have been accepted by NHAI without any scrutiny. The proof consultants (deployed for checking DPRs submitted by Design Consultants) appear to have done only cosmetic work and it appears that the officers in NHAI have not even opened the final DPRs submitted by the consultants before putting the works to tender. The result is that the DPRs, on the basis of which tenders have been called, are like garbage. When the problems are being noticed in DPR at the implementation stage and the design consultants are being requested to clarify them, we are getting a very cool and negative response from them. This is contributing to delay in the implementation of projects.

A good DPR is one of the foremost requirements for the smooth implementation of the Project and we are faltering at the very initial stage. In the present system there appears to be no accountability on the part of Design Consultant. To ensure this, we should evolve a system whereby the design consultant can be made accountable for any problem in the implementation of DPR and their consequent implications in terms of time and cost overruns. A system of insurance may be devised to address this issue. The Design Consultant may be asked to keep his establishment at site in the initial stage of implementation of project, so that any design issue may be addressed speedily. Alternatively, we may link substantial portion of payment of Design consultants to the implementation of DPR in the field. Another way may be to award design consultancy (for preparation of DPR) and supervision consultancy (to supervise the execution of project) to the same consultancy firm so that any discrepancy noticed in DPR at the execution stage is corrected by the same firm. We may deliberate further to arrive at the most suitable option.

Procurement of civil contractors

The process of procurement appears to have been completely manipulated and hijacked by the big contractors. Many contractors are submitting forged documents to justify their technical and financial capabilities to execute the project. The big contractors have been able to get all sorts of help (including even the most secret information and documents) from the officials in NHAI and even the note sheets carrying approval of chairman have been leaked outside. (This mostly appears to have been done by lower officials and supporting staff). Little thought has been given to the ability & sincerity of some of the contractors to do the work they have quoted for. The three striking examples are awards of NH-2 to M/s Centrodorstoy of Russia, M/s China Coal of China and M/s LG of South Korea which are all working like commission agents by collaborating with local incompetent and inexperienced firms and trying to get the work done through them. M/s Progressive Constructions Ltd is another contractor which appears to have completely manipulated the system to get the award of 2 projects on NH-2. This company is not organised on professional lines and it is run like a family business. They get one work and assign it to one relative, the second is assigned to another and the story goes on.

There is an urgent need to have a fresh look at the whole procurement process and utmost care needs to be exercised at the time of selection of contractors. The whole process should be made more transparent and any official found colluding with the contractors should be severely punished.

Mobilisation of Contractors and Mobilisation Advance to them

NHAI officials have shown great hurry in giving mobilisation advance to the selected contractors (no surprise, as the commission to officials for award of work are linked to the contractors getting their first mobilisation advance). In some cases the contractors have been given mobilisation advance just a day after signing the Contract Agreement. The entire mobilisation advance of 10 per cent of contract value (which goes up to Rs 40 crores in certain cases) has been paid to the contractors within a few weeks of award of work but there has been little follow-up to ensure that they are actually mobilised at site with the same pace. The result is that the entire mobilisation advance remains lying with contractors (or get diverted in their other activities) for months — a way for contractors to make easy money and for client to loose interest charges on them. Most of the contractors have not mobilised even up to 50 per cent, a year after getting their mobilisation advances.

Similar diversion or idling of funds are taking place in case of equipment advances to the contractors, another 10 per cent of the contract value. In many cases, the equipment is not being purchased and, even if purchased, is being used somewhere else. The contractors are getting customs and excise duty exemptions on most of the road construction equipment. However, because of laxity on the part of NHAI, the contractors in many cases are buying equipment on behalf of or for other parties and appropriating a portion of the excise/custom duty exemptions in their pocket.

We need to be vigilant and careful in giving advances to the contractors. The advances are given to the contractors to mobilise them quickly in the interest of project and therefore the same should be linked to their actual mobilisation at site. The advances should be given in installments and the release of next installment should be made dependent on utilisation of the previous installment. A strict vigil and audit needs to be done to ensure that the advances are used by contractors for quick mobilisation and are utilised in the same project for which they are being given.

Selection of Supervision consultants and Design consultants

The concept of supervision consultancy is a step in very right direction and the amount spent on them (roughly 2-3% of the cost of civil works) is a good investment. But here again we are faltering at the implementation stage.

There is a big fraud in the selection of Supervision/Design consultants which mainly depends on their technical manpower. To get the consultancy work, the consultants are proposing to deploy well-qualified and senior professionals in their technical proposals (many times their qualification and experience are being forged and NHAI officials are not taking any pain to ask for the documentary proof in support of their claims).

Many a times, the same professional figures simultaneously in technical proposals forwarded by many consultants and NHAI officials are doing little to discourage it. However, once that work is awarded to them, they are invariably coming with the request for replacement of their proposed personnel with professionals of much less qualification & experience.

To our shame, we in NHAI are giving least resistance to this trend and the proposals for replacement of professionals are being approved freely. The curriculum vitae of professionals are invariably being fabricated and manipulated by consultants to get approval, as the NHAI officials are not asking for any documentary proof in support of the qualification & experience claimed. Instead they are abetting this crime.

The consultants in first instance come with the replacement CV to have an informal discussion with the officials. However, once they are given the feeling that the same can’t be approved on file, the CV of same man is properly fabricated (in connivance with NHAI officials) and submitted formally and the approval is granted. This is the state of affairs.

The end result is that the consultants propose to deploy the most qualified, experienced and senior men in their organisation (or outside their organisation) to get the work and, once awarded the work, replace them by much inferior persons. They propose the same senior team to get another work and repeat the same story of replacement and the drama goes on.

This way, the consultants are completely manipulating the system. The well-qualified persons in head offices of consultancy firms are thus being used simply to get the work, but they are not being sent to the site, where they are being proposed to be deployed. The field units of these consultancy firms are instead being asked by their Head offices to look for the required personnel. The result is that many key professional posts are lying vacant for months or are being filled by unqualified person. In all these, it is the project which ultimately suffers.

This whole drama can be very easily checked provided we have the will. It is all the more easy in the totally computerised system at NHAI. A few steps outlined below will go a long way in remedying this ill.

(i) No consultant should be allowed to propose the deployment of same professional in more than one technical proposal.
(ii) It should be ensured that the same person is not proposed to be deployed by more than one consultancy firm.
(iii) It should be ensured that the person proposed by a consultancy firm is actually working in the firm or is having a bond with the firm to work in the project if the firm is awarded the project.
(iv) Replacement should be approved only under very extraordinary circumstances and a penalty should be imposed on the firm for their inability to deploy the proposed professional.
(v) All documentary proof in support of the qualification & experience claimed by a person should be asked.

In summary, it should be ensured that the supervision consultants deploys a well qualified & experienced team for proper supervision of the work. This becomes all the more important, because the supervision consultant (known as Engineer in FIDIC contract document) has been given immense powers & responsibilities under FIDIC conditions of contract which we are following.

The problem of subletting or subcontracting

The NHAI is going for International Competitive Bidding to procure the most competent Civil Contractor for execution of its projects. The works are usually being awarded at high cost and the contractors are assuring the best quality in the execution of projects. However, when it comes to the actual execution of works, it is found that most of the works (sometimes even up to 100 per cent) are being sublet or subcontracted to small petty contractors who are not at all capable to execute such big projects and ensure the quality of construction assured by the Civil Contractors. As a result, the entire process of shortlisting & pre-qualification of contractors and International Competitive Bidding are being nullified and what we are getting are the numerous petty contractors working at site and making a mockery of the prestigious project. The main Civil Contractors who have been awarded the work by NHAI are doing all these under the veil of labour contract which is permissible under the Contract Agreement. But in reality, they are getting most of the work done through numerous small petty contractors (main contractors are supplying only a few critical equipment & materials) at 50-60 per cent of the price quoted by them and the rest 40 per cent of contract price is being pocketed by them without much effort. In the process, the main contractors are working just like commission agents.

I would like to mention here that the above phenomena of subletting and subcontracting is known to all from top to bottom but every one is maintaining a studied silence. It would not be inappropriate to say that all these mouths have been shut by these big contractors who are manipulating the system and individuals alike. These petty contractors are bringing poor equipment & material, giving a big setback to the progress & quality of work. The main contractors are least bothered about the timely completion of projects (and penalties, if they are unable to finish the work in time) as they are quite sure of getting time extension by manipulating the individuals. They have already started fabricating spurious claims to make grounds for time extension and cost overruns. If this issue of subcontracting is not taken up with urgency, the entire project will be a very big failure both in terms of quality of construction and timely completion.

This issue cannot be expected to be tackled by field units of NHAI as the decision to sublet the works are being taken by Head offices of the contractors & not their field units. To address this, the top administration in NHAI has to take up the matter aggressively with the top management of contractors.

NHAI organisation & office system

It would not be inappropriate to say that there is no system in NHAI, there are only individuals. There is an urgent need to review and restructure the office procedure and office set up including the file system. Record keeping is very poor and it would be difficult to trace even the most important papers after some time.

The entire organisation is almost based on sourcing people on deputation basis. There is a need to have some permanent cadre strength in NHAI. In its zeal to maintain a lean and thin organisation, one Accounts officer/Manager (Finance) is allotted to two Project Implementation Units spaced around 200-300 kms apart, which is a mere nonsense. There is an immediate need to deploy one Accounts Officer/Manager (Finance) in each PIU, which have to manage projects of around Rs.1,000 crores.

The earlier we take up these issues, the better it is for the health of NHAI. If some well-planned measures are not taken soon, the NHAI as a system is headed for big failure.

As a concerned citizen of the country, I have brought these issues to your notice for your kind intervention and necessary action. Looking at the enormity of public fund involved in the project, the matter needs your urgent attention.

I have written all these in my individual capacity. However, I will keep on addressing these issues in my official capacity in the limited domain within the powers delegated to me. If any elaboration/clarification is needed on above issues I would be glad to render all my assistance in the interest of this very prestigious National Highways Development Project, which is undoubtedly the biggest ever project undertaken in India after independence.

Thanking you,
Your sincerely,

(For particulars please refer to the separate sheet) (See Box)

Name: S.K. Dubey
Educational Qualification: B.Tech (Civil Engineering) from IIT, Kanpur
Profession: Presently working as Manager (Tech.) in NHAI and posted at Project Implementation Unit, Koderma.
Parent Cadre: Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Other details: After graduating from IIT Kanpur in Year 1994, I was selected in Engineering Services Examination, 1994 conducted by UPSC and joined the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) in March 1996. I was also selected in Civil Services Examinations 1997 (Rank-258) and 1999 (Rank 198) but decided to continue with the MORTH. Presently, I am on deputation to National Highways Authority of India.
Address: S.K. Dubey, Manager
National Highways Authority of India
Project Implementation Unit, Koderma
Gurdwara Road, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma (Jharkhand)
Phone: 06534-23436 (O), 22576 (O), 22619 (R)

December 1, 2006 Posted by | skdf filings | Leave a comment

Florida Non Profit – SK DUBEY FOUNDATION, INC. – Shows Atal Bansal still working with Ashutosh Aman Mishra and directing activities in SKDF.



Changed 01/15/2005


Changed 01/15/2005

Document Number
FEI Number
Date Filed
Effective Date
Last Event
Event Date Filed
Event Effective Date

Registered Agent

Name & Address

Name & Address
5881 NW 151ST ST
MIAMI FL 33014 
Name Changed: 01/15/2005

Name & Address Title

Officer/Director Detail Name & Address Title


Report Year Filed Date

Annual Reports

Report Year           Filed Date
2004                      01/15/2005
2005                      01/15/2005

View Events

No Name History Information

Document ImagesListed below are the images available for this filing.

01/15/2005 — REINSTATEMENT
09/13/2004 — Reg. Agent Change
07/29/2004 — Off/Dir Resignation
12/09/2003 — Domestic Non-Profit


June 8, 2006 Posted by | Ashutosh Aman Mishra, Atal Bansal, skdf filings | 1 Comment

SKDF did not follow up with PRESS and COURTS to turn the Satyendra Dubey letter to PMO dated November 11, 2002 in to a charge sheet. Shows FAILURE of Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Atal Bansal of SKDF.

PRESS did not turn the Satyendra Dubey letter to PMO dated November 11, 2002 in to a charge sheet.
November 11, 2002 Letter to PMO
martyr SKD wrote – A dream project of unparalleled importance to the Nation
Read the following:
N. Ram Of The Hindu Is No Ram
Sucheta has taken the lead in exposing the professional misconduct of press. Press has very incompetently covered development and economy related issues.
N. Ram of The Hindu is No Ram, he may try to appear to be champion of freedom of press but he is no better than his rivals in business.
I have tried to raise very critical issues like Kaveri dispute or Narmada dispute for example but none in the press dared to cover it. Example:- When most of the water in KRS dam shall be lost on way to farmers why Supreme Court wanted to release barely minimum amount for Karnataka’s priority needs. Firstly press doesn’t have the skilled reporters and secondly, like most politicians, doesn’t want to convey bitter truth to people.
Press as the “Balancing Pillar” of democracy and efficient governance is as feeble as other three Indian constitutional pillars, legislature, executive and judiciary.
Press seldom challenges the bad decisions of the government when it does; it addresses the public outrage due to certain event.
Indian Express was the only newspaper that extensively covered Dubey story. But it did not turn the Satyendra Dubey letter in to a charge sheet.
In India role of judiciary in keeping a check on the functioning of legislature and executive is limited there press has to fill the gap.
On policy issues judiciary has limited powers and procedure is slow and complicated but press can respond instantly the way Corruptionfree responds.
There is huge credibility gap that press has to bridge.
Ravinder Singh
Under N. Ram, the Hindu becomes a ‘sorry’ paper
Posted by: “Sucheta Dalal”
Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:21 pm (PST)

Hello all

Freedom of press?

This is a horrifying new trend that will affect the entire media and ultimately freedom of __expression in the country.

Are editors/owners crawling when asked to bend? Do they really need to bend in order to get advertising?

Has survival become so tough for the media?

If things are so bad with print, you can imagine how much worse it is in the audio-visual media.

Everybody needs to think about this. Would appreciate reactions.


Under N. Ram, the Hindu becomes a ’sorry’ paper ARVIND SWAMINATHAN writes from Madras:
Editors, reporters and correspondents at The Hindu are in a state of shock and disbelief today after another grovelling apology to an automotive major from their card-carrying Editor-in-Chief N. Ram appeared on the pages of the paper.

“In the Open Page article by R.S. Anand titled ‘The way we showcase India abroad’, a sweeping and baseless statement was made about a Kirloskar product, suggesting it was outdated. The Hindu apologises for this unwarranted assertion and withdraws the Open Page article from its website,” the apology signed by the editor-in-chief reads.

The “offending” piece by Anand, a student at RWTH in Aachen, Germany, comprised run-of-the-mill reflections on the Hannover Fair, and contained just two references to Kirloskar—both of them in the same paragraph.

“Companies such as HMT, BHEL, Kirloskar, etc, participated in the (Hannover) fair. My fellow German students were shocked to see the engine displayed by Kirloskar which was designed a century ago. They asked me, ‘Are they still using this one?’’ the “offending” paragraph went.

That was enough for Ram, otherwise a champion of free ___expression on television and in public forums, to go out crawling on all fours.

“Just what does our editor find so sweeping and baseless about that statement,” asked a senior editor of the paper on condition of anonymity. “And anyway it is not the author’s statement, it is the quote of a German visitor.”

Hindu staffers are bemused that Ram, otherwise particular about details, should not have published the date of publication of the offending piece—May 21, 2006—in the apology. “It’s almost as if he doesn’t want readers who have back copies of the paper at home to go back and check,” a staffer said.

At the same time, many senior editors and journalists within and outside the Hindu are horrified that the whole article has been axed from the paper’s website although the references to Kirloskar were contained in only one paragraph.

“Look at the irony. We lecture the world on why Da Vinci Code should not be censored. We lecture the world on why Fanaa should not be blacked out. And yet, because some rich family is offended, we remove the whole piece from the website. Is only the paragraph at fault or the whole piece? And what will the author tell his German friends about The Hindu? That the paper has very elastic journalistic ethics, depending on who is offended ?” the editor asked.

There is yet a third angle to the apology which is that it comes over and above the head of the much-vaunted Reader’s Editor, K. Narayanan, whom Ram has been projecting as the panacea of all journalistic ills in the country.

“Was Kirloskar’s complaint brought to the notice of the Reader’s Editor? If not, why ? If so, what was the substance of the complaint—that somebody had a view that the advertiser did not like? So, is Ram the Advertiser’s Editor? Doesn’t this undermine the position of the Reader’s Editor,” a staffer asked.

The Kirloskar apology is the second inside 20 months since Ram displaced Malini Parthasarathy and his brother N. Ravi in a bloodless palace coup.

On October 20, 2004, Ram published this: “The contents, tone and language of ‘Kudos to Tata Motors’ by C. Manmohan Reddy (Business Review, The Hindu, October 18, 2004) are highly inappropriate. The Hindu conveys its deep regrets to Mahindra and Mahindra and also to Kotak Mahindra, ICICI Bank, and Citibank for the publication of the article.”

In that case, all the “offending” piece did was to lambast Mahindra and Mahindra for showing a “singular lack of responsibility towards the environment”.

“They choose to sell Bharat Stage I versions of the vehicle in large numbers in many of the 11, large and environmentally sensitive, cities where all the other automotive manufacturers have switched to BS II versions—all to save about Rs. 5,000 to 6,000 on very profitable SUVs that cost nearly Rs. 8 lakhs, on the road,” Reddy wrote.

That was enough for Ram to apologise to M&M and the auto finance companies. However unlike in the Kirloskar case, the offending M&M piece continues to remain on the paper’s website along with the apology two days later.

Media watchers say they are not surprised that both the apologies have gone out to automotive companies, which are big advertisers on the pages of The Hindu and many of which are located in Tamil Nadu.

What they find hilarious is that a committed communist should be so servile and obsequious to capitalists.

“Here’s a paper that day in and day out extols Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Prakash and Brinda Karat. And yet to see it saying sorry for such minor journalistic indiscretions, if they are indiscretions, suggests duplicity, if not plain hypocrisy,” says a journalist who has seen better days under G. Kasturi.

June 7, 2006 Posted by | Ashutosh Aman Mishra, Atal Bansal, Govt. of INDIA, Kalyan Panda [Implanter] Writes, martyr SKD, skdf filings, skdf letdown | Leave a comment

Treachery Of Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Kalyan Panda

Treachery Of Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Kalyan Panda



Last night I posted the massage that praying to the Supreme Court that SKDF didn’t favor CBI investigation in to SKDF but constitute Special Investigating Team.


I having experience of 30 years of petitioning and patenting could instantly make out SKDF is not serious in any investigation but was a “Cover Up Operation”. I have come across information that they were ABVP members as also Satyendra Kumar Dubey. Obviously Satyendra Kumar Dubey was the “Brightest and Honest To The Core Engineer.” After his death when Indian Express launched special coverage of the death of Premier Whistle Blower, the owners Conspired to sabotage investigation in to the Satyendra Dubey charge sheet. They didn’t want any dent to their political masters Shining Campaign.


Ø      CEO of SKDF was room mate of Satyendra Dubey and known to family family for 14 years and kalyan Panda for over 2 years, after introducing as Sons Beta) of parents of Satyendra, brothers to his sisters and younger brothers, they stabbed them in their back, swindled most of the donations and hindered CBI investigation.


Ø      Only a small fraction of donations collected in the name of Satyendra Dubey family was actually transferred to them that too after 6 months delay.


Ø      After 100 days PIL sabotaged on going CBI investigations.


Ø      Following IE report gave all the details, except the subcontracting of works at 40% to 50% discount.


Ø      Only one line was to be included in the PIL to ——- And then highlighted several instances of what he called ‘‘loot of public money’’ and ‘‘poor implementation- IE’’. “Subcontracting at 40% to 50% discount points to unprecedented Loot which Satyendra Dubey termed as “Great Loot Of Public Money” that may exceed Rs. 15,000 crores for golden quadrilateral project alone.


Ø      PIL to recover 40% to 50% Loot could have been made the very next day.


Ø      Bihar government ordered CBI investigation within a week in to murder of Stayendra Dubey.


Ravinder Singh


Whistleblower said don’t name me.

——— Govt did. He was shot dead


31-year-old IIT grad working on PM’s showpiece highway complained of corruption, contractor mafia




NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 29 The next time a promising young engineer sees corruption and mismanagement in a Government project he’s working on, chances are he will think twice, thrice, several times, before complaining to the political and bureaucratic establishment.


For, 31-year-old Satyendra Kumar Dubey did that, he sent his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office—and now he’s dead, killed by ‘‘unidentified assailants’’ in Gaya, Bihar last week.


Dubey, a 1994 civil engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur, was Deputy General Manager in the Centre’s National Highway Authority of India working on the 60-km Aurangabad-Barachatti segment of the Golden Quadrilateral in Bihar with headquarters in Koderma, Jharkhand.


On November 11, 2002, the Prime Minister’s Office received his letter addressed to the Prime Minister himself. In the letter, a copy of which is with The Sunday Express, Dubey called the PM’s highway showpiece ‘‘a dream project of unparalleled importance to the nation.’’


And then highlighted several instances of what he called ‘‘loot of public money’’ and ‘‘poor implementation.’’


Dubey requested his name be kept secret but at the same time, he let his identity known. He had reason to.


‘‘Since such letters from a common man,’’ Dubey wrote, ‘‘are not usually treated with due seriousness, I wish to clarify… that this letter is being written after careful thought by a very concerned citizen who is also very closely linked with the project. I request you to kindly go through my brief particulars (attached to a separate sheet to ensure secrecy) before proceeding further.’’

Just the opposite happened.


Dubey’s letter is riddled with signatures and scribbles of officials indicating it was a classic case of a file going into babudom’s endless orbit.


• In 10 days, the PMO fowarded Dubey’s complaint to his parent Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. (MoRTH). Dubey’s request for anonymity was apparently ignored by the PMO.


•Along with the attachment, his letter was sent to the MoRTH. Eight Ministry officials went through the letter.


• And on December 4, 2002, Dubey’s letter was sent to the National Highway Authority of India with a copy to NHAI’s Chief Vigilance Officer. And a covering letter from an official: ‘‘I am directed to forward herewith an unsigned letter on the above subject (National Highways Development Project complaint regarding loot of public money) for such action as deemed fit.’’


• On November 27, Dubey was shot dead in Gaya when he was returning from Varanasi. According to the FIR filed at the Rampur police station in Gaya by Dubey’s brother, the people whose corruption he exposed were behind the murder. The FIR does not name anyone. No arrests have been made so far.


Gaya Superintendent of Police Sanjay Singh, a friend of Dubey’s from his IIT Kanpur days, said he will ‘‘leave no stone unturned to track down the killers.’’


Dubey’s key complaints, according to the letter he wrote:


• Detail Project Reports (DPR) by design consultants are in ‘‘very poor shape and cannot be implemented in the field without major modifications…The result is that the DPRs on the basis of which tenders have been called are like garbage.’’


• Process of procurement ‘‘completely manipulated and hijacked’’ by the big contractors. Many contractors are ‘‘submitting forged documents to justify their technical and financial capabilities.’’


• The ‘‘big contractors have been able to get all sorts of help from the officials in NHAI and even the note sheets carrying approval of Chairman have been leaked outside.’’


• NHAI officials have shown great hurry in giving ‘‘mobilisation advance to selected contractors… No surprise as the commission to officials for award of work are linked to the contractors getting their first mobilisation advance.’’


• The entire mobilisation advance of 10% of contract value (which goes up to Rs 40 crore in certain cases) has been paid to the contractors ‘‘within a few weeks of award of work’’ without follow-up to ensure they are ‘‘actually mobilised at site with the same pace.’’


• ‘‘Diversion or idling of funds… in case of equipment advances to the contractors, another 10 per cent of the contract value.’’


• NHAI is going for international competitive bidding to procure the most competent civil contractor for execution of its projects. When it comes to the actual execution, it is found that most of the works (sometimes even upto 100 per cent) are being sublet or sub-contracted to small petty contractors who are not at all capable to execute such projects and ensure the quality of construction.’’



June 5, 2006 Posted by | skdf filings, skdf letdown, skdf previous members | Leave a comment

SKDF Blocked CBI Investigation. Shocking Evidence: Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Atal Bansal are responsible in SKDF

Shocking Evidence: SKDF Blocked CBI Investigation.




Something I have suspected over last 30 months is confirmed here.


Here is evidence that SKDF actually prayed to constitute Special Investigation Team in place of CBI investigation already on, the only interim prayer demanded by it — after 100 days of murder when CBI inquiry was already on.




It specifically stated that “Petitioner Is Not In Favor Of CBI Investigation” in paragraph 5.


“Prayer– a) constitute a Special Investigating Team under its direct supervision and control for conducting a fair and impartial inquiry in to the murder of Sh. S.K. Dubey.”


The interim relief application Paragraph 1.  – The petitioners are seeking judicial intervention to uphold rule of whose destabilization has been brought to light by the recent murder at Gaya, in the state of Bihar, of the IIT Kanpur educated Civil Engineer, Sh. Satyendra Kumar Dubey—.


So you can imagine how IITians, people of India were conned by SKDF led by Ashutosh Aman Mishra, Atal Bansal and Kalyan Panda.


There is no emphasis on “Great Loot Of Public Money”.



Evidence Of SKDF



(Civil Original Jurisdiction)

I.A. NO.________OF 2004











The Hon’ble Chief Justice

and his companion justices of the Supreme Court of India

Most respectfully showeth:


1. The petitioners have filed the accompanying petition in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are seeking judicial intervention to uphold the rule of law whose destabilisation has been brought to light by the recent murder at Gaya, in the State Bihar, of the IIT Kanpur educated Civil Engineer, Shri Satyendra Kumar Dubey, who was working in a section of the prestigious Golden Quadrilateral Project, which is the largest project of its kind under the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) with a budget of over RS. 30,000 Crores.


2. Mr. Dubey had written a confidential letter to the Prime Minister of India in November of 2002 exposing heavy corruption in the running of the project. On 27th November 2003 Mr. Dubey was murdered. There is a strong possibility that Mr. Dubey’s murder was occasioned by the disclosure of his identity as the author of the letter, which exposed high corruption. That by the accompanying petition, the petitioners have not only sought an investigation into all the circumstances surrounding the murder of Satyendra Dubey, and into the complaints that Satyendra Dubey had made regarding corruption in the Golden quadrilateral project, but the petitioners have also sought systematic changes in the administrative regime to prevent such horrendous things from happening in future.


3. The Petitioners are not narrating the entire facts of the case in this application and craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the contents of the accompanying Writ Petition for the purpose of this Application.


4. Since the Petitioners has prayed for an impartial and thorough investigation into the murder of Sh.S.K. Dubey by a Special Investigation Team, it will be desirable that such a team is constituted during the pendency of this Petition. The constitution of such a team by this Hon’ble Court during the pendency of the instant petition will enable this Hon’ble Court to monitor the investigation.


5. The Petitioners are not in favour of a CBI investigation being conducted in this matter since the case involves the Prime Minister’s Office also and the Petitioners apprehends that a fair and proper inquiry by the CBI will not be possible in this case. Moreover, the amended CVC Act is also in force which has reintroduced the single directive in Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and has curbed the powers of CBI to investigate the high level officials of the Government without the prior approval of the Central Government.


6. In the light of the above it will be imperative in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court constitutes a Special Investigation Team giving them suitable powers enabling them to investigate the whole incident fairly and impartially.



In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court during the pendency of the accompanying writ petition may be pleased to:


a) constitute a Special Investigation Team under its direct supervision and control for conducting a fair and impartial inquiry into the murder of Sh. S.K. Dubey;


b) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.








June 4, 2006 Posted by | Ashutosh Aman Mishra, Atal Bansal, skdf filings | Leave a comment