Times of India: Bangalore: Saturday,
June 04, 2016.
Beleaguered
chief minister Siddaramaiah's woes seem to never end. Now, a sanction has been
sought on the grounds of his nominating to the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC)
stewardship, a businessman with whom he is said to have had monetary
transactions to the tune of Rs 1.3 crore.
Crying foul
over the entire transaction, activist S Bhaskaran has sought the sanction of
governor Vajubhai Vala to prosecute the chief minister in the case. In his
petition, he has cited a financial transaction between businessman L
Vivekananda and the chief minister, and Vivekananda's nomination to the BTC
stewardship by the government.
But Vivekananda,
an oldtimer in turf clubs, rubbishes charges of any wrongdoing, though he
admitted lending money to the chief minister.
THE
SANCTION PETITION
Bhaskaran, in
his petition dated May 25 seeking permission to prosecute chief minister, has
relied on two important aspects - first, nomination to the BTC stewardship from
the government's side and the CM's assets and liabilities statement submitted
to the Lokayukta for the year 2014-15.
"I would
like to draw your attention to an individual by name L Vivekananda, being
nominated as a member of the managing committeesteward to the BTC.The chief
minister is the sole authority in the state government empowered to nominate
members to the Bangalore Turf Club. After nominating Sri L Vivekananda as a
member to the managing committee steward to the Bangalore Turf Club, the chief
minister has entered into monetary transactions and availed a loan of INR
1,30,00,000 from the same individual, Sri L Vivekananda on 28.07.2014,"
Bhaskaran has stated in his petition.
"This is
in stark contrast of the rules, regulations and guidelines being set by the
central government with regard to do's and don'ts for people's representatives.
"The
code of conduct for chief ministerministers being issued by the union home
ministry clearly states that 'a chief ministerminister should not, nor permit a
member of his family, contract debts of a nature likely to embarrass or
influence him in the discharge of his official duties," he stated further.
He has alleged that the chief minister having monetary and business
transactions with an individual, who has been rewarded an office of profit by
his own government, was strictly prohibited and showed pecuniary benefit
bestowed upon the individual in exchange of money and vice versa.
He has also
mentioned how his attempts to procure information - 'copies of nomination
proceedings of stewards, members to managing committee of BTC, along with all
file notings from May 13 till date' under RTI Act from the CM's office had gone
in vain as the CMO passed it to BTC, and the BTC, in turn, said that it didn't
come under the purview of the RTI Act.
Calling it an
attempt to withhold the information, he has sought the governor's sanction to
prosecute the chief minister over the issue.
'CHARGES
BASELESS'
L
Vivekananda, member of the managing committee, BTC, rubbished any wrongdoing in
the entire process involving the financial transaction and nomination, calling
them two entirely different entities.
"It has
been three years since I became a nominee (for stewardship). Last year, my
friend (the CM) had taken a cheque from me and returning the amount shortly.
They were to buy some property, I had lent them Rs 1 crore and they are
returning the amount. I have been a nominee for three years because I was
chairman of Mysore Race Club (MRC) for two years. I have also been a member of
BTC for more than a decade. Thanks to this experience, he has nominated me
there. This is a personal and a regular affair on my merit.About three months
back, in Lokayukta returns given, there is a mention of mine and a friend's
name. And also nomination to BTC is not an office of profit," Vivekananda
said.
EXPERT
VIEW
There should
be a nexus between the nomination and the loan obtained subsequently to make
out a case. And this fact can only be proved by best evidence, that is the
person nominated if he says there is no nexus, the best evidence is not
available for sanction.Only other factor remains is the circumstance. When the
best evidence is not available, circumstance at the most may create suspicion,
which, however grave, can never take place of proof. Here, as the sanction is
sought, the proof is important. In case of an FIR and thorough investigation,
after collecting evidenceboth oral and in document, it will be important to
prima facie establish the case of misconduct, that is nexus between loan lent
and nomination, then perhaps there could be a case -CG Sundar, Senior advocate
told Bangalore Mirror.
.JPG)
.JPG)
