Advertisement
The matter, which came up for hearing before a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah, saw their advocates questioning the maintainability of the application filed by an intervenor for reviving the criminal case in which the complainant has already withdrawn his plea.
The issue relates to denotification of 4.20 acres of land allegedly in contravention of the Karnataka Restriction of Transfer of Land Act, 1991.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and A M Singhvi, who were appearing for Yeddiurappa and Shivakumar respectively, told the bench that the complainant in the case had withdrawn his appeal from the apex court last year and a third party, who has nothing to do in the case, cannot be allowed to intervene at this stage.
Related Articles
Advertisement
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for intervenor NGO ‘Samaj Parivartana Samudaya’, told the bench that complainant had withdrawn his plea from the apex court on mentioning the matter before a bench but intervention plea can be heard.
He sought recall of the February 21 order by which the plea filed by the complainant was “dismissed as withdrawn” by the top court.
“A tentative chief minister of Karnataka is one of the respondents (in the matter). A person who is likely to become the chief minister today is involved. The other person was then a minister in Karnataka,” Bhushan told the bench in an apparent reference to Yeddyurappa and Shivakumar.
Rohatgi told the court that complainant had withdrawn his plea from the apex court and “the application for revival is by an intervenor”.
“What is his concern?,” Rohatgi said.
Singhvi argued that the Karnataka High Court had quashed criminal proceedings in the case and the complainant, who had moved the apex court challenging the order, has already withdrawn his appeal.
The bench said that it would hear arguments on the maintainability of the application filed by the intervenor.
During the hearing, when the bench asked Singhvi as to for whom he was appearing in the matter, the senior counsel said he was representing Shivakumar.
“We are not influenced by names,” the bench observed.
To this, Singhvi said it is Bhushan who submitted before the court that respondents in the matter are a tentative chief minister and a former minister.
A trial court in Karnataka had in February 2012 taken cognisance of a private complaint filed against Yeddyurappa, Shivakumar and others in the matter.
The high court had in December 2015, however, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint.