<p> The Lokayukta special court on Wednesday allowed impleading advocate R V S Naik and I U Mecci in the complaint on irregularities in the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project. </p>.<p><br />Complainant T J Abraham submitted a memo, stating that Naik was a shareholder in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) and was a beneficiary. </p>.<p><br />“Knowing that neither R V S Naik nor his firm King and Patridge could not legally or professionally advise or represent the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) before any forum, tribunal or court in connection with land acquisition for the benefit of NICE, they have represented the KIADB in more than 68 cases before the High Court and in various other fora and tribunals,” he stated.</p>.<p><br />Abraham contended that these representations were made in specific cases where the KIADB and the special land acquisition officer had acquired land for NICE and were fighting against the dispossessed land owners.</p>.<p><br /> They have criminally colluded to suppress discovery of their fraudulent acts intended to benefit NICE by engaging R V S Naik and his firm King and Patridge, he argued.<br />I U Mecci, who represented NICE in various transactions, communications and correspondences, has also been included. <br /> The matter has been adjourned to August 24.<br /><br /></p>
<p> The Lokayukta special court on Wednesday allowed impleading advocate R V S Naik and I U Mecci in the complaint on irregularities in the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project. </p>.<p><br />Complainant T J Abraham submitted a memo, stating that Naik was a shareholder in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) and was a beneficiary. </p>.<p><br />“Knowing that neither R V S Naik nor his firm King and Patridge could not legally or professionally advise or represent the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) before any forum, tribunal or court in connection with land acquisition for the benefit of NICE, they have represented the KIADB in more than 68 cases before the High Court and in various other fora and tribunals,” he stated.</p>.<p><br />Abraham contended that these representations were made in specific cases where the KIADB and the special land acquisition officer had acquired land for NICE and were fighting against the dispossessed land owners.</p>.<p><br /> They have criminally colluded to suppress discovery of their fraudulent acts intended to benefit NICE by engaging R V S Naik and his firm King and Patridge, he argued.<br />I U Mecci, who represented NICE in various transactions, communications and correspondences, has also been included. <br /> The matter has been adjourned to August 24.<br /><br /></p>
