JOIN USState gets going on recovering Jaya case costs from TN
The State government has initiated the process of recovering from Tamil Nadu the expenditure incurred by it while handling the disproportionate assets case against AIADMK supremo J Jayalalitha over the last 12 years.
The Supreme Court had ordered the transfer of the two disproportionate assets cases against the former Tamil Nadu chief minister and four others from a special court in Chennai to a special court in Bengaluru in November 2003.
Speaking to reporters here on Tuesday, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T B Jayachandra said that the Supreme Court - while transferring the case to the special court in Bengaluru - had stated that the expenditure of the case had to be borne by the Tamil Nadu government.
He said that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) had been asked to furnish a report in this regard, following which the same would be forwarded to the Tamil Nadu government, asking for the amount to be reimbursed.
Jayachandra said that so far, the government of the neighbouring state had not made any payments, and that many of the departments, including the law and order and prisons departments, had footed the bill, over the last decade.
The minister said that Tamil Nadu would also have to pay for the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the government.
DPAR report
Some time back, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms had furnished a report stating that the Karnataka government had incurred an expenditure of Rs three crore to Rs four crore.
However, I was dissatisfied with the amount quoted and sent back the report.
The officials had left out certain items in their calculations,” he said.
Jayachandra said that the government was yet to decide on its next move on whether or not to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against Monday’s High Court verdict acquitting Jayalalitha in the Rs 66.65-crore wealth case.
He said that once Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya gave his opinion on the matter, the government would seek Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar’s opinion and then arrive at a decision.
Pending bills
When asked about the pending anti-superstitions bill and the controversial Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, and the levying of luxury tax under Karnataka Marriages (Regulation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976,
Jayachandra said that there had been no change in his stance.
He said that the Law Commission had given its report, and the same had been sent for administrative approval. Following this, the matter would be brought before the cabinet, he added.
With regard to the controversial Yettinahole project, Jayachandra reiterated that the government was awaiting the enforcement of the Central land acquisition act, to initiate the land acquisition process.