Telangana High Court Prevents ACB from Detaining KTR Until December 30
Click to start listening
Hyderabad, Dec 20 (NationPress) In a significant reprieve for Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president and former minister K. T. Rama Rao, the Telangana High Court on Friday prohibited the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from detaining him until December 30 in connection with the Formula-E race case.
The court issued the interim order following a quash petition filed by K. T. Rama Rao (KTR).
While extending relief to KTR, the court permitted the investigation to proceed and instructed the state government to submit its counter by December 23. The hearing has been postponed to December 27.
The ACB had registered a case against KTR on Thursday for the alleged misuse of government funds related to the organization of the Formula E race in Hyderabad last year when the BRS was in power.
During discussions regarding KTR’s lunch motion petition, Advocate General Sudershan Reddy urged the court not to issue an interim order, citing that the investigation had only just commenced.
Senior counsel Sundaram, Prabhakar Rao, and Gandra Mohan Rao represented KTR, arguing that the clauses of the Prevention of Corruption Act invoked by the ACB were not applicable in this scenario and requested the court to quash the FIR.
KTR’s legal team contended that the case was initiated against him out of political revenge. They informed the court that the ACB failed to follow the Supreme Court’s directive for a preliminary inquiry before filing cases against public representatives.
The case pertains to the alleged unauthorized transfer of Rs 55 crore from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) to Formula E Operations (FEO) without the necessary approvals.
The FIR was filed under Sections 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that following the direction of then industry minister KTR, HMDA transferred Rs 55 crore to a foreign entity in violation of RBI guidelines, without securing approvals from either the Cabinet or the Finance Department.
KTR’s attorneys argued that the ACB had not adequately detailed where and how the alleged corruption occurred, despite invoking sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Advocate General maintained that the FIR registration was merely the initial phase, asserting that the sections would be invoked based on emerging facts during the investigations.
The court was informed that the decision to register the case was made two months earlier and that it was registered following approval from the state Governor.
The Advocate General highlighted that rules were breached in the payment of over Rs 56 crore, indicating that the payment being in foreign currency had imposed an extra burden on HMDA.
Upon the court inquiring about KTR’s involvement in the payment, the Advocate General responded that KTR’s role would be clarified as the investigation progressed.
