Bengaluru: The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the mega MUDA alternative sites allotment scam, has told the Karnataka High Court that the cancellation of the summons issued to former MUDA Commissioner Dr. D.B. Natesh in connection with the scam, by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court (HC) has prevented it from questioning B.M. Parvathi, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who was allotted 14 sites by MUDA in lieu of 3.26 acres of land at Kesare.

A two-member Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind heard a review petition filed by the ED seeking questioning the Single-Judge Bench order on Wednesday, during which the Advocates representing the ED, argued that the cancellation of summons to Natesh was hindering the ED probe.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju who argued for the ED, said that the cancellation of the summons issued to Natesh would have a serious bearing in the investigation of other cases being probed by the ED. The accused in other cases are referring the cancellation of the summons in MUDA scam case, in order to escape ED questioning, which has severely hampered the functioning of the Central law enforcing agency.

Raju also argued that if the Court rules that ED searches are against the law, then the others accused in the MUDA scam too may get bail. When the HC Bench asked about the number of accused in the case, Raju responded that there were four accused in the case and the HC has cancelled the summons issued to accused No. 2 (B.M. Parvathi) also.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave who argued on behalf of D.B. Natesh, contended that the cancellation of the summons issued by the ED to Natesh was in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling and as per the Law.

Pointing out that a person had petitioned the Lokayukta alleging that the CM’s wife (Parvathi) had illegally got 14 sites sanctioned by the MUDA, Dave argued that, however, there was no complaint regarding money laundering in the case. But still, the ED raided the residence of Natesh and subsequently issued the summons, which is against the law, he noted.

Continuing, Dave argued that the ED had filed a case under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) based on the FIR filed by the Lokayukta Police. However, there is nothing to prove that there was any money transaction in the allotment of 14 sites and as well as the return of sites to MUDA by Parvathi. Arguing that the allotment was purely a MUDA decision, Dave wondered whether this can be termed as a criminal act.

The HC Bench after hearing the arguments and counter-arguments posted the next hearing for today (Mar.27).