The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated searches at the premises of Maayank Tiwari, an individual based in Ahmedabad. Tiwari stands accused of allegedly impersonating a high-ranking official within the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and attempting to coerce an eye hospital chain into relinquishing a sum exceeding Rs 16 crore, as part of a dispute resolution. These actions were brought to light by officials familiar with the matter.
Several documents were seized during recent search operations, and they are currently under examination, according to the CBI. However, as of now, Tiwari has not been arrested in connection with these allegations.
Tiwari is alleged to have communicated through phone calls and messages from his mobile device, directing the founders of Dr. Agarwal's, a chain of eye hospitals, to settle a dispute concerning an Indore-based hospital that was purportedly in debt to Dr. Agarwal's for an amount exceeding Rs 16 crore, as reported by officials.
The dispute stems from an agreement between Dr. Agarwal and two doctors associated with the Indore-based hospital, where the latter was set to join the franchise by paying over Rs 16 crore. However, it is claimed that the Indore hospital began to violate the terms of the agreement, leading to a contentious situation. Dr. Agarwal sought the return of their funds and the termination of the agreement, which escalated the matter to the High Court. The court appointed an arbitrator to mediate, and as part of an interim injunction, directed the Indore hospital to deposit Rs 16.43 crore within four weeks.
Amid this legal dispute, Tiwari allegedly approached the promoters of Dr. Agarwal, urging them to forgo the alleged dues and amicably resolve the situation with the doctors running the Indore hospital.
Upon learning of these events, the Prime Minister's Office swiftly notified the CBI, prompting an inquiry into the purported impersonation of a PMO official.
According to the PMO's complaint to the CBI, this appears to be a case of impersonation and misuse of the PMO's name, as neither the individual involved nor the claimed designation holds any affiliation with the PMO.
Â
