The Karnataka High Court on Monday granted an interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons issued to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, an accused in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna also stayed the summons issued to Minister Byrathi Suresh, who, while not named as an accused, was summoned by the ED for questioning.
The judge noted that since he had earlier reserved orders on a related petition seeking a CBI probe into the scam and had also restrained the Lokayukta police from submitting its probe report until a decision was made on the plea for transfer of the investigation, allowing parallel proceedings would not be appropriate.
What is the tearing hurry? I cannot allow this, as it will frustrate the proceedings before me. I have just heard the related case and reserved orders, Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Accordingly, the Court stayed the ED summons to both Parvathi and Suresh until February 10.
The Court was hearing petitions filed by Parvathi and Suresh challenging the ED summons. Senior Counsel Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Parvathi, argued that the ED was attempting to initiate a parallel investigation into alleged irregularities in MUDA land allotments despite the matter already being probed by the Lokayukta police and a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Additional Solicitor General of India Arvind Kamath, representing the ED, contended that Parvathi was the second accused in the predicate offence (illegal land allotment) and was summoned as she had received proceeds of crime. However, the Court rejected this argument.
What proceeds of crime? As far as I know, she (Parvathi) has already returned the sites, Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.
Senior Counsel C.V. Nagesh, representing Minister Suresh, argued that the summons issued to him should be quashed since he was not named as an accused in the predicate offence. In response, ASG Kamath cited Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which empowers the ED to summon even non-accused individuals for documents and records.
However, the Court found no urgency in the matter and ruled that issuing an interim stay would not prejudice any party.
There is no urgency. What is the hurry now? I do not want my proceedings to be frustrated. I have already directed the Lokayukta to withhold its report until my pronouncement. Since the very proceedings related to the predicate offence have been deferred, the ED summons will undoubtedly interfere with the Court’s process, the judge stated while granting an interim stay.
