views
HYDERABAD: Kadapa MP Jagan Mohan Reddy has been summoned by the CBI to present himself on Nov. 4 for questioning in relation to the illegal mining case against Gali Janardhan Reddy.Sources indicated that Jagan Mohan Reddy may seek time from the CBI citing his ongoing Odarpu Yatra and other engagements including a marriage he has to attend. The CBI sent the notice to Jagan almost a week ago. It is understood to have prepared a detailed questionnaire for Jagan. Whenever Jagan appears before the CBI at the agency’s office in Koti, answers will be sought from him about his role in the mining leases and his business links with Janardhan Reddy. The agency believes that Jagan used several of his companies to disguise his investment in Janardhan Reddy’s mines.It is learnt that the statement of a failed mining lease bidder provided the basis for the CBI’s summons to Jagan. This bidder, the son of a senior Congress leader, reportedly claimed to have been threatened by the Kadapa MP not to participate in the bidding for mines in Anantapur district.It was during the tenure of Y S Rajasekhara Reddy as chief minister that tenders were called for mining leases in Anantapur district. Among the bidders were Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) and the son of a senior Congress leader and former MLA from Proddutur. The latter was the 16th applicant in the list of bidders.This applicant is said to have claimed he was told by Jagan to back off. Though it is not clear whether or not this bidder did back off, he did not win the bid. Sources in Jagan’s camp maintain that he was only ‘’called and made to understand’’ and not threatened.Now with the CBI speeding up its investigation into the mining scam, this failed bidder is said to have come forward with information on how the leases were won. The CBI recorded his statement in the presence of a magistrate. The statement provided them the grounds on which to summon the young MP.The notice served on Jagan Mohan Reddy mentions him as a ‘witness’ in the illegal mining case.
Comments
0 comment