Even as the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on Tuesday arrested Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain, former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) chief executive officer IAS Udit Prakash Rai, and four others in a case alleging manipulation of tender conditions for sewage treatment plant (STP) projects, the case is already proceeding in a Delhi court as a money laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Investigation further revealed that Rajkumar Kurra, managing director of M/s EEPL, got the terms and conditions of the DJB tender manipulated through officials of DJB and private persons Nagendra Yadav and others, making the tender restrictive to the usage of ‘IFAS (Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge) technology with fixed media’ only and thereby, enabling Euroteck to become the sole supplier of technology in the said tender. It was lodged on a complaint by the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance against Hyderabad based firm M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd. (M/s EEPL) and other unidentified persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating and criminal conspiracy and under sections of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
The ACB’s corruption probe The ACB’s case was registered on May 11, 2024, when Jain was the Delhi water minister and chairman of DJB. In the ED case, the investigation by the agency was already underway by July 4, 2024, two months after the ACB lodged its case, when ED conducted search operations in four cities in connection with the DJB’s STP corruption case. During the searches, the agency claimed to have seized cash worth ₹ 41 lakh, along with various incriminating documents and digital evidence. On July 3 that year, Jain was questioned at the ED headquarters in connection with the case. On December 8, 2025, based on their investigation, the agency filed a prosecution complaint against 14 persons, including Jain, then CEO of DJB Udit Prakash Rai, then member of DJB Ajay Gupta, then chief engineer Satish Vashishth and other private persons and entities under provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Broadly, the ACB’s allegations said that tender conditions and technical specifications were allegedly made unnecessarily restrictive, limiting genuine competition. The agency further said that electronic communication between public officials, private parties and intermediaries showed discussions about tender conditions and corrigenda before they appeared in the official tender documents.
