Sabitha Indra Reddy files petition in HC seeking stay on cases filed by CBI against her

Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation, which probed the illegal mining 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 then Congress government, is an accused in the case. It said she had granted permission to OMC for extracting coal over and above permitted.

The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heared the plea filed by Sabitha, now Minister for Education, seeking a direction to stay all further proceedings in CC no 1 of 2012 registered against her on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

N Nagender, CBI standing counsel,informed the court that a 24-page counter-affidavit has been filed and 104 documents annexed to the chargesheet. Of the 104 documents, the prosecution has relied upon 101 which are fresh. Based on them a third supplementary chargesheet has been filed, which clearly substantiates that Sabitha is an accused in the case.

The CBI has found new documents during the course of investigation. The statements of 36 witnesses have been recorded.They have spoken against her. Nagender found fault with the contention of senior counsel Umamaheshwar Rao, appearing for Sabitha, who stated that she had signed the note pertaining to grant of permission to OMC to extract coal, without going into details. The minister who owes allegiance to the Constitution ought not 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 staff, contended the CBI counsel.

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

The State government cannot accord permission to any mining company, without obtaining consent of the Centre. In the case OMC was permitted by State in the absence of the Central consent. On instructions of the Union government, the State can process the file pertaining to the permissionbut cannot accord permission. This act is in sheer violation of the mining rules in vogue.

Accordingly permission to OMC, without adhering to the mining rules and without obtaining consent of the Centre by the petitioner, prima facie, builds a case against her. She has to face trial in lower court. On that grounds itself, the CBI standing counsel prayed the court to dismiss the criminal revision case petition filed by Sabitha.

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

The senior counsel informed the court that the third supplementary chargesheet filed in the case is nothing but a replica of the first. There is nothing new in it. He disputed the CBI contention that of the 36 witnesses, who gave statements against the petitioner, not a single statement has been read out in the open court, bringing incriminating evidence against her.

"All 104 documents which, are relied upon by the CBI, pertain to private investors, which are irrelevant to this case". Rao told the court that there is another criminal revision case petition filed by B Kripanandam, former secretary (Industries and Commerce), who is accused 8 in the chargesheet.

After conclusion of submissions by Kripanandam, Rao will continue his arguments and also reply to the CBI counter.