Cuttack, Feb. 19: Orissa High Court today directed the state vigilance to submit on February 24 the preliminary inquiry report related to the case it had registered against former director-general of police Prakash Mishra.

The court issued the direction after the state vigilance being accused of foisting the case without any basic facts and iota of evidence.

The single-judge bench of Justice S.C. Parija was hearing the arguments of Mishra's counsel. Senior advocate Sanjit Mohanty, who appeared on his behalf, argued that the corruption case registered by the vigilance had "no basic facts" and the audit reports relied on were "inconsistent and contradictory".

Mishra, an Odisha cadre IPS officer of the 1977 batch, and who is now the director-general of the Central Reserve Police Force, challenged the case the state vigilance had registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The FIR was registered against him on September 20 last year for alleged undue favours shown to various steel and cement suppliers during his tenure as chairman-cum-managing director of the Odisha Police Housing and Welfare Corporation between 2006-07 and 2009-10.

The vigilance had alleged that undue favours were shown by way of making 100 per cent advance payments of Rs 57.86 crore prior to the supply of cement and steel within stipulated period. Mohanty, however, argued that the state vigilance had, in its affidavit, admitted that making payments in advance prior to supply of cement and steel was in practice both before and subsequent to Mishra joining as the CMD.

The affidavits also indicated that the corporation made more profit due to the centralised purchase policy Mishra had adopted. While around 200 projects were under way, the purchase price paid in advance against purchase orders for cement and steel was less than the market price, Mohanty contended.

Justice Parija had started hearing arguments after state vigilance had submitted affidavits related to practice and procedure adopted by the corporation for procurement of steel and cement from supplier or manufacturer prior to Mishra's joining as the CMD and after he demitted office and audit reports of the corporation from 2006-07 to 2009-10.

The FIR had alleged that reconciliation was not done for portions of the purchase price paid in advance against purchase orders during Mishra's period. But, Mohanty said the auditor general's report clearly indicated that reconciliation had been done for all purchase price paid in advance during the tenure of Mishra.

There was also "no iota of evidence" related allegations of criminal conspiracy in the FIR, Mohanty further contended in court.

Justice Parija fixed February 24 for hearing further arguments of Mishra's counsel, along with the preliminary inquiry report of the state vigilance. The court fixed March 4 for presentation of arguments by state vigilance.