The lawyers of former Karnataka chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, keeping a close watch on two cases coming in the Supreme Court against him, seem confident that the CEC recommendation against him would not stand judicial scrutiny when the forest bench takes it up as the panel has almost “reproduced” the same charges which have been already dealt with by the Lokayukta court. Mr Yeddyurappa’s lawyers were more encouraged by the comments of the forest bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia on Friday that it would wait for the hearing of a special leave petition coming up before a regular bench in the Lokayukta case on Monday as some of the issues might “overlap” in the two cases.
The lawyers say that the entire recommendation of CEC for a CBI probe against the former CM, in fact, “overlap” with the Lokayukta case. The basic principle of law is that there could not be two parallel proceedings on the same issue against a person.
The CEC, in its report, had identified four issues for the CBI probe. The first related to the purchase of 1.12 acre of agriculture land by Mr Yeddyurappa’s two sons Vijayendra and B.Y. Raghavendra and son-in-law R.N. Sohan Kumar for `40 lakh and the same being sold to South West Mining Ltd for `20 crores in 2006 after changing of the land use plan from agriculture to commercial land. There are also allegations of the company paying `10 crores donation to Prerna Education Society run by family members of Mr Yeddyurappa.
The second issue related to illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri Port and other related matters. The third issue identified by the CEC for a CBI probe relates to the export of iron ore from Krishnapatnam and Chennai ports after export was banned by the Karnataka government and the fourth issue relates to transfer of senior police officers on deputation to Lokayukta.
His lawyers say the first issue listed in the report had formed the basis of the Lokayukta FIR against him and the HC had quashed the case.
on the question of “faulty sanction” granted by the governor.
Since a complainant by Srijan Basha, on whose plea the FIR was registered after the governor’s sanction, has filed a SLP in the SC on the same issue, it was apparent that the forest bench would have not liked to take up the matter before the regular bench hears the case, the lawyers say.