PANAJI: Demanding that the government should order an CBI inquiry into the recent allegations by Ms Lucky Farmhouse, the Swedish girlfriend of Atala, the accused in the drug case, that son of a local politician was involved with the drug mafia, the Leader of the Opposition,

Mr Manohar Parrikar on Wednesday said that he himself, in the capacity of the chairman of the ad-hoc House committee on home, would be taking up the matter, during the future public hearings of the ad-hoc committee.
Addressing a press conference, the Leader of the Opposition further said that if nothing comes out of the public hearings of the ad-hoc House committee on home, he would be forced to write to the Bombay High Court, requesting it to refer the drug case to the CBI, as there exists number of decisions of the Supreme Court directing the investigation of cases involving police and politicians, to an independent investigating agencies like CBI.
“But I would do it only after exhausting my available avenues through the legislative channel,” he maintained.
Mr Parrikar also raised question as to how could the deputy superintendent of police (CID), Mr Chandrakant Salgaonkar make a statement to the press that the son of a particular politician was not involved in the drug racket.
“Did that mean, Mr Salgaonkar had already investigated into the allegation, or had idea who was the son and who was the father,” he questioned.
Further alleging that the investigation in the drug case is manipulated by the local police, the Leader of the Opposition said that interrogating owner of a gadda located opposite the local CBI office, itself can give out much information.
As regards his own interrogation by the CBI for alleged misappropriation of funds during the IFFI 2004, Mr Parrikar said that   anyone in public life should be ready for investigation of any kind. “But there should be a limit for time-frame to carry out the inquiry,” he stated, hoping that his CBI inquiry would end within next two months, as told to the media by the CBI officials.
Mr Parrikar further refuted that the case was referred to the High Court at any time.