KTR gets relief for a week, HC gives nod to investigation in Formula E case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has granted BRS working president KT Rama Rao relief for a week and asked the Anti-Corruption Bureau not to arrest him until the next hearing, i.e. December 30. However, the court has not entertained the quash petition filed by KTR and said the investigation into the alleged misuse of government funds must go on.

ACB registered a case under sections 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with sections 409 and 120(B) of the IPC. It is alleged that Rs 45 crore was paid by HMDA to the foreign company FEO in contravention of the RBI guidelines. The ACB FIR has named KTR as accused No 1, IAS officer Arvind Kumar as accused number 2, and former HMDA Chief Engineer BLN Reddy as accused number 3.

A day after the case was registered by the ACB, MLA KTR moved the Telangana High Court. Justice Shravan Kumar who heard the argument has directed the investigating agency to go ahead with the probe but not arrest KTR until the next hearing. The court asked KTR to cooperate with the investigating department. The court also observed that the FIR registered by the ACB lacked certain ingredients and needed examination.

‘Not a criminal but a civil issue’

Strong arguments were submitted during the hearing. Senior counsel CA Sundaram, who argued on behalf of KTR, stated that is not a ‘criminal but a civil issue’.

Sundaram said, “The FIR is very well drafted with a political vengeance. A preliminary enquiry shall be conducted whether a cognizable offence was committed or not.”

Sundaram argued about why an FIR was registered after 14 months and questioned the reason for the delay. “I request the court to give protection to the petitioner KTR,” appealed Sundaram to the court.

In response to the petition filed by KTR, government prosecutor Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy argued that the charges will not be framed in the FIR and after a thorough enquiry, charges will be filed. Reddy said, “This is a lunch motion. There is the proper procedure followed by the government by taking the permission of the governor. Since it is not at the stage of FIR, in these circumstances, interference is improper.”

Reddy submitted to the court that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on October 18, 2024, by the principal secretary of the municipal administration and urban development department. At the forefront of the investigation, interference is highly objectionable by the petitioner. He pleaded with the court not to entertain the quash petition and the FIR as the evidence and that a robust enquiry must be sought.