BENGALURU: Stating that the allotment of 14 compensatory sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife BM Parvathi by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) is only the tip of the iceberg, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Thursday contended before the High Court of Karnataka that it had issued summons to her and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh to record their statements.
Making submissions before Justice M Nagaprasanna, who heard and reserved the order on the petitions filed by Suresh and Parvathi against the summons issued by ED, additional solicitor general K Arvind Kamath said Suresh was involved in the allotment of sites.
Therefore, summons had been issued to him to record his statement and to check if sites were allotted in a transparent manner.
‘ED has right to seek property details’
Contending that ED was well within its right to seek details of properties owned by Suresh and Parvathi, Kamath said she had submitted a letter to surrender the sites allotted to her and MUDA accepted it the same day itself. Besides, it passed a resolution to accept the letter. Had a common man surrendered such sites, MUDA would have taken weeks or months to consider his plea, Kamath added.
Contending that acceptance of sites by MUDA was subject to investigation by ED, he said merely because the surrendered sites were in the custody of MUDA, it would not wipe off the characteristics of criminal activity. However, ED did not make any allegations against them, but just issued summons to record their statements. It was like a civil inquiry, he argued.
Justifying that ED need not disclose the purpose of issuing summons, he said summons were issued to record their statements, gather information of their accounts to check whether they had received proceeds of crime and purchased properties in their or their relatives’ names. He stated that there were many properties in the names of the relatives of a former commissioner of MUDA. If they did not cooperate with its investigation, ED may act as per law, he argued.
Senior counsels CV Nagesh and Sandesh Chouta argued on behalf of Suresh and Parvathi, respectively. Returning of sites did not mean that she had admitted to the offence and there was no basis to state that allotment itself was an offence. When there was no foundation, and if the summons were issued in a hasty manner, the court should interfere and quash them, they argued and referred to media reports that the Lokayukta police had filed the ‘B’ report in the MUDA case.