E-Paper
We had no role in Muda allotments case: Suresh
Suresh expressed surprise at receiving a summons from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stating that it was the first such notice he had ever received
Karnataka urban development minister Byrathi Suresh on Tuesday denied any involvement in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) land irregularities case, asserting that neither he nor chief minister Siddaramaiah’s wife played any role in the case.
Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru, Suresh said, “I am very clear. The court granted the stay after considering that we had no role in the case. The matter has been adjourned to February 10, and we will see what happens after that.”
Suresh expressed surprise at receiving a summons from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stating that it was the first such notice he had ever received. “When the scam occurred, I was not in charge of the urban development ministry. I did not allot or acquire any sites. After questions were raised, the sites allotted to the CM’s wife were returned. The high court Judge was convinced of these facts and issued the stay,” he explained.
The Karnataka high court on Monday stayed the ED’s summons to Suresh and BM Parvathi, who were asked to appear before the agency in connection with the alleged case. The court questioned the urgency of the ED’s actions, with justice M Nagaprasanna asking, “What is the tearing hurry?”
Parvathi, named as the second accused in the case, was initially asked to appear before the ED on January 28, while Suresh was summoned for January 27. Both approached the high court seeking relief, which granted a stay on the summons until the next hearing.
During the court proceedings on Monday, Sandeep Chowta, counsel for Parvathi, argued that the allegations of illegal allotment of 14 sites did not involve any monetary gain. He requested a stay on the ED’s investigation against her. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the illegal assets in question were no longer in the possession of the accused and emphasised that the ED’s investigation should not interfere with the court’s proceedings.
Additional solicitor general Arvind Kamat, representing the ED, clarified that the agency had only requested the accused to appear and produce documents, which would not interfere with the court’s proceedings. However, the bench remained unconvinced, stating, “I cannot allow this as it will frustrate the proceedings before me, especially since I have already heard the related case and reserved orders.”
Chief minister Siddaramaiah, addressing the allegations, dismissed the ED’s actions as politically motivated. “The entire Muda case itself is politically driven. Isn’t the ED notice politically motivated? Why should I be worried? I am confident that I will get justice,” he told media on Tuesday.
The HC previously cancelled ED summons issued to former MUDA commissioner DB Natesh, citing similar concerns. Senior counsel CV Nagesh, representing Suresh, on Tuesday argued that his client was not an accused in the Muda case and sought protection similar to that granted to Natesh.
The case, based on an FIR filed by the Lokayukta, remains under judicial scrutiny, with the court reserving its judgment. The developments have sparked a political debate, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alleging that Suresh had destroyed documents related to the case, a claim he has denied.
Suresh reiterated his trust in the judiciary, stating, “I and the Congress have full trust in the judiciary and the Constitution. We will follow the court’s orders. The ED officials must explain why they issued notices to us.”
The Muda case revolves around allegations of illegal allotment of sites by the authority. The ED’s involvement stems from charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Nagaprasanna, while granting the stay, observed that the court had already reserved its judgment in the Muda case and that the ED’s investigation could interfere with the judicial process. “What is the emergency to probe the matter at this juncture? The case has been reserved for judgment. Why should the investigation by the ED proceed now?” the bench questioned.
