"That’s Why We Filed a Case Against KTR'': ACB to High Court in E-Car Racing Matter

On 31 Dec 2024 15:58:46

The Telangana High Court held a hearing today on a quash petition filed by former minister K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) seeking to dismiss

The Telangana High Court held a hearing today on a quash petition filed by former minister K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) seeking to dismiss the case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) concerning the Formula E car racing event. During the proceedings, the court inquired about the allegations in the case and sought clarification from the government counsel.

The ACB's legal representative argued that payments made during the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government’s tenure violated existing regulations. They explained that sections under the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy laws were invoked, citing the misuse of public funds as the basis for filing the case against KTR.

The High Court questioned whether the Formula E Operations company was included in the FIR and asked for details regarding the agreements involved. The ACB alleged that payments amounting to ₹46 crores in foreign currency were made without adhering to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulations. Furthermore, the bureau stated that any payments exceeding ₹10 crores by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) required prior approval from the Finance Department, which was not obtained. Despite election code restrictions, an agreement was signed to conduct the race, according to the ACB’s counter-argument.

The bureau also accused authorities of failing to follow Secretariat Business Rules in the disbursal of funds. They highlighted that the payment note file bore KTR's signature in his capacity as a minister.

KTR Did Not Benefit Personally: Advocate Sidharth Dave

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sidharth Dave, representing KTR, argued that the sections invoked by the ACB do not apply to the FIR. He noted that the agreement for the Formula E car race was signed by an official and pointed out that the Urban Development Department's principal secretary signed the agreement, which was under that department’s jurisdiction. Therefore, he contended, it was inappropriate to name KTR as an accused in the FIR.

Dave emphasized that KTR did not derive any personal benefit from the matter and asserted that the ACB lacked evidence to substantiate corruption allegations. He presented several legal precedents to the court and requested the dismissal of the FIR filed against KTR.

The Advocate General is scheduled to present arguments following the lunch break.