Illegal mining: Telangana minister Sabitha Indra Reddy seeks stay on CBI cases against her

Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which probed the illegal mining case by the Obulapuram Mining Company owned by Gali Janardhan Reddy, on Friday filed a 24-page counter affidavit confirming its stand that Sabitha Indra Reddy, former mines and geology minister in the Congress government, is an accused in this case as she granted permission to the OMC for extracting coal over and above the area.

On Friday, the Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the plea filed by Sabitha Indra Reddy, minister for education in the BRS-led Telangana government and former minister for mines and geology in the Congress government, seeking a direction to stay all further proceedings in the case registered against her on the file of the principal special judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

N. Nagender, standing counsel for the CBI, informed the court that a 24-page counter affidavit is filed and 104 documents have been annexed to the charge sheet.

Out of the 104 documents, the prosecution has relied upon 101 documents, which are fresh, and based on it a third supplementary charge sheet has been filed, which clearly substantiates that Mrs. Sabitha Indra Reddy is an accused in this case.

The CBI has found new documents, during the course of its investigation, and the statements of 36 witnesses have been recorded by the CBI who have spoken against the former minister.

The CBI counsel, Mr. Nagender, found fault with the contention of the senior counsel, Mr. Umamaheshwar Rao, appearing for the petitioner Sabitha Indra Reddy, who stated that the minister had signed on the note file pertaining to the grant of permission to OMC to extract coal, without going through the details. Such ignorance by a minister of the state, who owes allegiance to the Constitution, ought not to have taken such a decision blindly, depending on the advice of subordinate staff. She should have executed the work in conformity with the Constitution and not on the advice of the subordinate staff, contended the CBI counsel.

On 18 June 2007, approval was granted to the OMC to extract coal and by that date, there were other contenders, who were on a better footing than OMC, permission was granted to the OMC despite the fact that many writ petitions, filed by other applicants, who were denied permission, were pending before the High Court, apart from revision petitions pending before the Government of India.

The state government cannot accord permission to any mining company, without obtaining the consent of the Government of India, and in this case, the OMC was granted permission by the state in the absence of consent of the Government of India. On the instructions of the Centre, the state can process the file pertaining to the permission but cannot accord permission and this act is in sheer violation of the mining rules in vogue.

Accordingly, permission to OMC, without adhering to the mining rules in vogue and without obtaining the consent of the Central government, by the petitioner, prima facie, builds a case against the former minister and she has to face the trial in the lower court and on the above grounds itself, the CBI standing counsel prayed the court to dismiss the criminal revision case petition filed by Sabitha Indra Reddy.

Mr. Umamaheshwar Rao, senior counsel, interrupting the submission of Mr. Nagender, informed the court that he had never pleaded ignorance on behalf of the petitioner to which the CJ said that the CBI counsel should be allowed to make his submissions.

Further, the senior counsel informed the court that the third supplementary charge sheet filed in this case is nothing but a replica of the first charge sheet. There is nothing new in the third charge sheet he said and disputed the contention of the CBI counsel that out of the 36 witnesses who gave statements against the petitioner, not a single statement has been read out in the open court, which brings out incriminating evidence against the petitioner.

All 104 documents, which are relied upon by the CBI, pertain to the private investors, which are irrelevant to this case.

Mr. Umamaheshwar Rao informed the court that there is another criminal revision case petition filed by B. Kripanandam, former secretary, the industries and commerce department, AP government, who is an accused in the charge sheet.

After the conclusion of submissions by Mr. Kripanandam, the senior counsel, Mr. Umamaheshwar Rao, will continue his arguments and also give a reply to the counter filed by the CBI.

The matter was adjourned to 17 March.