
HYDERABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a plea filed by BRS working president KT Rama Rao seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging misuse of funds in the conducting of Formula-E race in Hyderabad in 2023.
A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale upheld the Telangana High Court’s dismissal of Rama Rao’s quash petition and refused to intervene in the high court’s decision.
With no other recourse, Rama Rao’s counsel chose to withdraw the petition. However, the court did not grant liberty, but allowed the withdrawal, pointing out that the petitioner could pursue other remedies under the law.
The FIR alleges that unauthorised payments of approximately `55 crore, primarily in foreign exchange, were made to the Formula-E Operations (FEO), allegedly on the directions of Rama Rao, the then Municipal Administration minister. The high court noted that Rama Rao faces the allegations that he directed the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) to make these payments without clearance from the Cabinet or the Finance department.
In its January 7 order, the high court ruled that prima facie, a case can be made out against Rama Rao. It stated, “Whether the petitioner directed the said payments with a dishonest intention to cause gain to himself or third parties is required to be investigated. The allegations, when read together, indicate wrongdoing and misappropriation of HMDA funds.
Bid to stall investigation, TG’s counsel tells SC
The Supreme Court underscored that the investigating agency must be allowed sufficient time to collect evidence and conduct its probe without judicial interference.
Senior advocates Aryama Sundaram and Siddartha Dave, representing Rama Rao, argued that the FIR was politically motivated and that their client had not gained personally from the payments made to FEO. They contended that Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was improperly invoked since no personal benefit was alleged. Counsels also criticised the swift registration of the FIR, asserting that proper inquiry was mandated by the Supreme Court in such cases.
Despite these arguments, the bench rejected the claim that invoking Section 13(1)(a) was grounds to quash the FIR.
Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, argued that the quash petition, filed within 24 hours of the FIR registration, was an attempt to stall the investigation. He urged the court not to grant interim relief or liberty in the case.