<p>Hearing a petition by Y S V Datta, MLC and JD(S) spokesperson, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice A S Bopanna restrained the Commission from recording any evidence and submitting any interim report till Friday. <br /><br />While granting interim order for one day, the Chief Justice observed that “these are political matters, so anything can happen in a day,” the Bench said. The court has observed that “no meaningful public purpose is served, if investigation is carried out simultaneously by two agencies. It may lead to different conclusions.” <br /><br />AAG asked to clarify<br /><br />The court has also directed the Additional Advocate General (AAG) to clarify, whether the complaints made by Datta will be considered by both Lokayukta and Commission of inquiry? <br />Whether investigation can be permitted to be carried on by the Lokayukta alone? The court asked AAG to clarify these two points. The court has suggested the State to allow any one of agency to conduct inquiry. If State is not interested in suggesting the same, the court will order any one of the agencies to conduct the inquiry into alleged land scam cases, the Chief Justice observed. <br /><br />The petitioner has challenged the State government’s decision on appointing Justice Padmaraj Commission. He has also challenged the State government’s communication on December 6, requesting the Lokayukta to not to proceed with inquiry of alleged land grab cases. Senior counsel Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Commission has been appointed just to avoid Lokayukta inquiry into alleged land grabbing cases. <br /></p>
<p>Hearing a petition by Y S V Datta, MLC and JD(S) spokesperson, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice A S Bopanna restrained the Commission from recording any evidence and submitting any interim report till Friday. <br /><br />While granting interim order for one day, the Chief Justice observed that “these are political matters, so anything can happen in a day,” the Bench said. The court has observed that “no meaningful public purpose is served, if investigation is carried out simultaneously by two agencies. It may lead to different conclusions.” <br /><br />AAG asked to clarify<br /><br />The court has also directed the Additional Advocate General (AAG) to clarify, whether the complaints made by Datta will be considered by both Lokayukta and Commission of inquiry? <br />Whether investigation can be permitted to be carried on by the Lokayukta alone? The court asked AAG to clarify these two points. The court has suggested the State to allow any one of agency to conduct inquiry. If State is not interested in suggesting the same, the court will order any one of the agencies to conduct the inquiry into alleged land scam cases, the Chief Justice observed. <br /><br />The petitioner has challenged the State government’s decision on appointing Justice Padmaraj Commission. He has also challenged the State government’s communication on December 6, requesting the Lokayukta to not to proceed with inquiry of alleged land grab cases. Senior counsel Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Commission has been appointed just to avoid Lokayukta inquiry into alleged land grabbing cases. <br /></p>
