×
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

'Complaint filed against MLC has gone missing from Lokayukta office'

Last Updated 21 June 2015, 19:40 IST

A complainant in the Lokayukta office has stated that his complaint against an MLC (Member of Legislative Council) has gone missing from Lokayukta office.

T J Abraham, who had filed several complaints against Bescom and PWD in the recent past, on Tuesday said that his complaint against MLC K Govindaraju, is found to be missing.

In his complaint Abraham had stated that Govindaraju was allotted a stray site by Bangalore Development Authority under sports category and later an alternative site was allotted despite adverse remarks on the file. 

According to Abraham, the complaint was filed on April 23 with Upalokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi. 

“Subsequent to this complaint, I had met Upalokayukta with other complaints about irregularities in PWD works at the office of the DG&IGP and also against officials of Bescom in purchase of meters. The Upalokayukta told me that my earlier complaint against the MLC had been handed over to Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Lokayukta. To track the status of my complaint, I visited the ADGP's office and found that there was no trace of the file. The Upalokayukta has asked me to wait till June 30, since the ADGP is on leave,” Abraham said. 

The complaint was that K Govindaraju was allotted a stray site in OMBR Layout under the sports category. Later, Govindaraju filed an application seeking an alternative site, measuring 60X40 at Domlur Layout. 

“The Deputy Secretary BDA had written in the notings that Govindaraju had not fulfilled the minimum criterion required for the allotment of the stray site in OMBR Layout. Despite this serious observation, the BDA Commissioner went ahead with the allotment of an alternative site in Domlur Layout. In the first allotment itself, Govindaraju had not fulfilled the basic requirement for allotment of site under sports category - any State or national level award,” Abraham had stated in his complaint. 

The complaint said that Govindaraju was thus liable for action under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 21 June 2015, 19:40 IST)

Follow us on

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT