The Anti-Corruption Bureau arrested two Surat Municipal Corporation employees on Monday for allegedly accepting a Rs 11,000 bribe to process a city resident’s licence to sell firecrackers, according to the agency. The arrests place a routine municipal licensing process under scrutiny while the investigation proceeds under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused were identified as Vipulkumar Jayantkumar Joshi, 56, a Class III sanitary inspector posted at ward 37(A) in the Piplod office under SMC’s Athwa zone, and Shailesh Kishanbhai Solanki, 37, a Class IV sanitation worker in the same ward. The ACB said Joshi drew a monthly salary of Rs 1.37 lakh, while Solanki’s salary was Rs 30,000.
According to the ACB, the complainant had applied for a firecracker sales licence at the ward 37(A) health office in Piplod. He was allegedly asked to pay Rs 11,000 for the licensing process to be completed. The complainant declined to pay and approached the ACB, which subsequently registered a complaint and arranged a trap operation.
During the operation on Monday, Solanki allegedly accepted the Rs 11,000 from the complainant on Joshi’s instructions, the agency said. The ACB team then caught both employees and recovered the entire amount, according to the report. The allegations have not been tested in court.
The case concerns the municipal role in processing licences for the sale of firecrackers. Such applications require interaction with civic offices, making the conduct of frontline staff important to how residents access regulated commercial permissions. In this case, the alleged demand was connected specifically to completing the licensing process at an SMC ward health office.
The ACB registered a case against Joshi and Solanki under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The arrests followed an operation led by S D Dhobi, police inspector at the Surat Rural ACB police station, under the supervision of R R Chaudhary, assistant director of the ACB’s Surat unit.
The agency’s account identifies the alleged transaction, the municipal office involved and the roles attributed to each accused. Further legal proceedings will determine the status of the allegations and the evidence presented in the case.
