Bangalore, June 25: BJP leader S Suresh Kumar's defence against charges of irregularities in him having acquired a G category site from BDA has some loose ends. He resigned as law minister on Saturday over the allegations.
THE HOUSE He has said that he sought a G category site because his ancestral house in Gayatrinagar had been notified for road widening by BBMP. But the Palike had only notified the house and hadn't taken physical possession. While staying at the official bungalow provided to him as minister, Suresh Kumar continued to meet his constituents from his Gayatrinagar ancestral house.
SUBSIDY His statement that neither his family members nor he had procured any site at a subsidized rate has led to a debate. The sites were allotted to his mother and daughter at Madanayakanahalli by Sathyanarayana Housing Co-operative Society. "The objective of forming a housing society is to provide sites and houses at subsidized rates. Otherwise, why should one form a society?'' asks S Bhaskaran, the whistleblower,whose RTI campaign resulted in allegations against Suresh Kumar coming into the open.
NO MENTION OF HOUSE The minister claims he hasn't lied to the BDA in his affidavit. But while registering the site at Nagarbhavi on January 23, 2010, he does not mention about the house his family owned at Ramamanohar Layout in Gayatrinagar. The minister says there was no need as the house had been notified.
Later, after the Nagarbhavi site was denotified, he sought an alternative site. He was allotted a site at RMV Extension. While registering the site on January 23, 2011, he did not mention about the house in his mother's name and the two sites in his mother and daughter's name in Bangalore North taluk. "At least while taking this site, he should have rejected the site by saying that he owned a house and proved his honesty. Why didn't he do it,'' asks Bhaskaran.
Explained a BDA official: "Technically, when Suresh Kumar sought a site, the house at Gayatrinagar was notified and his family members hadn't purchased the sites at Madanayakanahalli near Nelamangala. He was allotted a site at Nagarbhavi, but it was denotified later. He did not apply afresh, but sought an alternative site as a compensation for losing the allotted site.We normally don't ask for a fresh affidavit. By the time he got the alternative site at RMV Extension, his house was restored. Here, technically, he may argue that the entire process was based on the proceedings initiated in 2009 and hence hasn't committed any wrong. But, the counter-argument could be that he concealed the information.''
