KTR flew to Delhi for the personal meeting with Khattar, apparently in a tit-for-tat action against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy fast-tracking the Formula E race case against him.
Published Nov 12, 2024 | 8:33 AM ⚊ Updated Nov 12, 2024 | 2:18 PM
KT Rama Rao.
The BRS on Monday, 11 November, met Union Urban Development Minister Manohar Lal Khattar and urged him to cancel any illegal AMRUT 2.0-related contracts in Telangana.
BRS Working President KT Rama Rao made the request to the central minister while alleging corruption and nepotism in awarding the contract.
Rao flew to Delhi for the personal meeting with Khattar, apparently in a tit-for-tat action against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy fast-tracking the Formula E race case against him.
In his representation, the BRS leader wondered how the MUDA scam involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was different from the allotment of AMRUT 2.0 tenders to Revanth Reddy’s brother-in-law. In the MUDA case, alternative land was allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife, which sparked the controversy.
Rao said that AMRUT 2.0 contract allotment was no different from the Ashok Khemka vs State of Haryana (2014) case in which the state violated the law to ensure profits for Robert Vadra, promoter of DLF and the son-in-law of the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
The BRS alleged that in a blatant misuse of power, a ₹1,137 crore contract was awarded to Shodha Infrastructure Ltd, a company with just ₹2.2 crore profit the previous year. Sujan Reddy, brother-in-law of Revanth Reddy, is the promoter of the company. He said the contract was awarded in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He reminded the Union Minister that the tender allotment was an instance of misuse of authority by Revanth Reddy and his family. The Constitution, KTR said, has clear provisions to prevent and address the misuse of authority by public functionaries, including elected representatives, ministers, and government officials.
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, prohibits misuse of position for personal gain.
He said the Office of Profit Act has mandated no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member. Awarding the AMRUT contracts to his brother-in-law amounted to a conflict of interest. The Indian Constitution dictates that there needs to be a separation of power between the legislature and the executive.
He said the AMRUT 2.0 tender allotment is a clear case of violation of Article 191 (1) of the Indian Constitution. He said the tender allotment has a strong similarity to the office of profit case against Jharkhand Chief Minister Heman Soren. The allegations centered on the violation of constitutional provisions under section 9 (A) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. The Telangana AMRUT 2.0 tender allotment, too, committed the same violations, he said.
“It is a direct violation of the Code of Conduct also. Public representatives and their families cannot start or participate in business concerns, engaged in supplying goods or services to that government. If that happens, the matter needs to be reported to the chief minister. But if the chief minister and his family are directly involved in corrupt practices, who will blow the whistle,” he asked.
The BRS leader also sought the Union Minister to not just investigate the ₹1,137 crore allotment to Shodha Infrastructure but the entire AMRUT 2.0 tender allotment of ₹8,888.51 crore in Telangana.
Rao also pointed out that the prerequisites for winning AMRUT tenders are technical expertise and financial stability. Going by the financial statements and the history of Shodha, the allotment is contentious, he said.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
