<p>Legislative Assembly Speaker Kagodu Thimmappa has reiterated that his approval was not required for prosecuting any member of the House. <br /><br /></p>.<p>In a detailed reply to the application filed by Shivamogga-based advocate Vinod Kumar B, seeking to prosecute Housing Minister M H Ambareesh for utilising public money for his treatment in Singapore, the Speaker stated, “No person, including the speaker is competent to remove a member of the assembly from his office.”<br /><br />The complainant Vinod said he will file a private complaint against the minister before the Lokayukta special court in Bengaluru. “I will file a private complaint before the Lokayukta court. However, if the public money utilised for the minister’s treatment is returned, I will not file the complaint,” he said.<br /><br />The communication from the Speaker’s office stated that appointing authority is empowered to accord sanction for prosecution. “According to Section 197 of CrPC and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction for prosecution could be granted only by the authority which employed or appointed a public servant and which has power to remove him from the office held by him. A member of the Legislative Assembly is not appointed by anybody. He is elected by the people. Hence, no person, including the speaker, is competent to remove a member of the assembly from his office.” <br /><br />In his application seeking to prosecute Ambareesh, the complainant had claimed that the State government had paid up to Rs 1.16 crore towards the medical expenditure in violation of the Karnataka Ministers’ Medical Attendance Rules. Vinod Kumar had also sent the same application to the Governor’s office. The governor’s office is yet to post its reply, Vinod Kumar said.<br /><br />The complaint stated that the State government in an order dated July 11, 2014 gave an approval to reimburse Rs 1.16 crore. The government order stated that the order was issued exercising the powers under rule 10 of the Medical Attendance Rules, and also on relaxation of rule 7, considering as a special case. <br /><br />The applicant claimed that as per the Medical Attendance Rules, ministers have to take medical treatment within the country if the required facilities are available. The maximum reimbursement in such cases is usually Rs 5 lakh and they may be allowed treatment abroad in special cases. According to Vinod Kumar, the Housing Minister is liable for punishment for criminal misconduct.<br /></p>
<p>Legislative Assembly Speaker Kagodu Thimmappa has reiterated that his approval was not required for prosecuting any member of the House. <br /><br /></p>.<p>In a detailed reply to the application filed by Shivamogga-based advocate Vinod Kumar B, seeking to prosecute Housing Minister M H Ambareesh for utilising public money for his treatment in Singapore, the Speaker stated, “No person, including the speaker is competent to remove a member of the assembly from his office.”<br /><br />The complainant Vinod said he will file a private complaint against the minister before the Lokayukta special court in Bengaluru. “I will file a private complaint before the Lokayukta court. However, if the public money utilised for the minister’s treatment is returned, I will not file the complaint,” he said.<br /><br />The communication from the Speaker’s office stated that appointing authority is empowered to accord sanction for prosecution. “According to Section 197 of CrPC and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction for prosecution could be granted only by the authority which employed or appointed a public servant and which has power to remove him from the office held by him. A member of the Legislative Assembly is not appointed by anybody. He is elected by the people. Hence, no person, including the speaker, is competent to remove a member of the assembly from his office.” <br /><br />In his application seeking to prosecute Ambareesh, the complainant had claimed that the State government had paid up to Rs 1.16 crore towards the medical expenditure in violation of the Karnataka Ministers’ Medical Attendance Rules. Vinod Kumar had also sent the same application to the Governor’s office. The governor’s office is yet to post its reply, Vinod Kumar said.<br /><br />The complaint stated that the State government in an order dated July 11, 2014 gave an approval to reimburse Rs 1.16 crore. The government order stated that the order was issued exercising the powers under rule 10 of the Medical Attendance Rules, and also on relaxation of rule 7, considering as a special case. <br /><br />The applicant claimed that as per the Medical Attendance Rules, ministers have to take medical treatment within the country if the required facilities are available. The maximum reimbursement in such cases is usually Rs 5 lakh and they may be allowed treatment abroad in special cases. According to Vinod Kumar, the Housing Minister is liable for punishment for criminal misconduct.<br /></p>
