Top

Bengaluru: Justice Nayak sullied, can't be Ayukta, alleges activist

It is also stated in the complaint that Nayak had purchased the site from the cooperative society.

Bengaluru: Justice S.R. Nayak, whose name has been making rounds as the probable Lokayukta, has been accused of acquiring valuable immovable properties in the city and outskirts through Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), and Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society, by violating site allotment norms and cooperative society bye-laws.

The accusation has been made by a 57-year-old social activist S. Jagannatha, who has registered a private complaint with the Lokayukta Court on Wednesday.

The complaint stated the accused could be booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 13 (1) (d) (i) (ii) (iii) & 2 read with 190 and Section 200 of the CrPC.

According to the activist, documents obtained under the RTI reveal that Justice Nayak owned a site in the name of his wife Shalini S. Nayak at Sarjapura Road, Sector 1, Agara bearing No. 644, having acquired it on lease cum sale basis from the BDA in September 1990.

Thereon, Nayak in his wife’s name also purchased a site and a building bearing No. 399, 2 block, RMV 2 stage in Bengaluru in August 2001.

Later S.R. Nayak had purchased yet another site in his name from the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited bearing number 859/c situated at Allalsandra in Chikkabommasandra in Bommanahalli Plantation measuring 64+74/2 x 99+80/2 feet.

The activist in his complaint stated that it was unbecoming of a High Court Judge to violate cooperative society bye-laws and get a site allotted in his name, when he already owned two sites in the name of his wife – one allotted by the BDA and the other one purchased, which was also approved by BDA.

It is also stated in the complaint that Nayak had purchased the site from the cooperative society, which is also approved by the BDA by furnishing false declarations about the previous immovable properties that he owned in his wife’s name, which is a clear violation in the House Building Cooperative Society bye-laws.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle. )
Next Story