Sabitha Indra Reddy files petition in HC seeking stick around on cases filed by CBI against her
Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation, which probed the mining by the Obulapuram Mining Company owned by Gali Janardhan Reddy, on Friday filed a 24-page counter- affidavit confirming its stomach that Sabitha Indra Reddy, former Mines and Geology Minister in the then Congress government, is an accused in the showcase. It said she had granted approval to do something to OMC for extracting fossil fuel over and above permitted.
The long seat of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heared the plea filed by Sabitha, now Minister for Education, seeking a orientation to stick around all further proceedings in CC no 1 of 2012 registered against her on the file cabinet of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.
N Nagender, CBI standing counsel,informed the judicature that a 24-page counter-affidavit has been filed and 104 documents annexed to the chargesheet. Of the 104 documents, the criminal prosecution has relied upon 101 which are sassy. Based on them a third subsidiary chargesheet has been filed, which clearly substantiates that Sabitha is an accused in the showcase.
The CBI has found unused or little used documents during the class of probe. The statements of 36 witnesses have got been recorded.They have got spoken against her. Nagender found responsibility for a bad situation with the contention of older or higher in rank counsel Umamaheshwar Rao, appearing for Sabitha, who stated that she had signed the short letter pertaining to monetary aid of approval to do something to OMC to extract fossil fuel, without going into details. The government minister who owes allegiance to the Constitution ought not taken such a decision blindly, depending on the proposal for an appropriate course of action of subordinate personnel. She should have got executed the oeuvre in conformity with the Constitution and not on the proposal for an appropriate course of action of the personnel, contended the CBI counsel.
On June 18, 2007, blessing was granted to OMC to extract fossil fuel. By that appointment there were not the same contenders, who were on a better footing than OMC. Permission was granted to OMC despite the that many writ petitions, filed by not the same applicants, who were denied approval to do something, were pending before the HC, apart from revision petitions pending before the Government of India.
The State government cannot accord approval to do something to any mining companionship, without obtaining consent of the Centre. In the showcase OMC was permitted by State in the failure to be present of the Central consent. On instructions of the Union government, the State can procedure the file cabinet pertaining to the permissionbut cannot accord approval to do something. This subdivision of a play or opera or ballet is in sheer infringement of the mining rules in vogue.
Accordingly approval to do something to OMC, without adhering to the mining rules and without obtaining consent of the Centre by the petitioner, prima facie, builds a showcase against her. She has to confront legal proceedings in glower judicature. On that evidence itself, the CBI standing counsel prayed the judicature to give the axe the outlaw revision showcase petition filed by Sabitha.
Umamaheshwar Rao, interrupting the submission of Nagender told the judicature that he had never pleaded lack of knowledge on behalf of the petitioner. The CJ said the CBI counsel should be allowed to earn his submissions.
The older or higher in rank counsel informed the judicature that the third subsidiary chargesheet filed in the showcase is nothing but a replica of the initial. There is nothing unused or little used in it. He disputed the CBI contention that of the 36 witnesses, who gave statements against the petitioner, not a separate assertion has been interpret something that is written or printed out in the affording free passage judicature, bringing incriminating evidence against her.
“All 104 documents which, are relied upon by the CBI, pertain to private investors, which are irrelevant to this case”. Rao told the judicature that there is another outlaw revision showcase petition filed by B Kripanandam, former secretarial assistant (Industries and Commerce), who is accused 8 in the chargesheet.
After ending of submissions by Kripanandam, Rao testament continue his arguments and also reply to the CBI business table.