Saturday, August 5 2006 11:50 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Justice Pathak inquiry yesterday (Aug 4, 2006) had a fall out inside and outside Parliament proceedings of which were disrupted by a vociferous Opposition protesting the leakage of the findings into which the government has announced a probe.

The leakage of the report which has indicted former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and his son Jagat Singh but exonerated the Congress party of being a non-contractual beneficiary in the Iraqi oil for food scam shortly after it was presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh triggered an uproar by the Opposition and upset Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee.

With both the Houses unable to transact any scheduled business and were adjourned till Monday, Finance Minister P Chidambaram denied government had leaked the report to the media. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi announced that a 'very firm' probe would be held into the leak by an agency which he did not name.

Justice R S Pathak also denied he had any hand in the leakage.

"All that I know is that there is no no leakage from my office. Certainly not from my side," the former Chief Justice of India told reporters on the sidelines of a function where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was also present. On the political front Natwar Singh maintained that he and his Congress Party were inseparable and he would respond to any questions from the party if he was asked. He said he and his son had no position to misuse, an indictment the Pathak Authority had made," he said.

He parried all questions on whether he would join the Samajwadi Party saying, "The doors of several parties were open" for him and he would not answer the issue now.

Natwar Singh also said, "I have a lot of information which I will make public at an appropriate time".

His son Jagat Singh conceded that his father wrote letters of introduction for businessmen to do business in Iraq.

He, however, maintained neither oil nor any contractors were mentioned in those letters and that he and his father cannot be held responsible if Andaleeb Sehgal, close to them, and others did business with the help of these letters.