Bangalore: Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Suresh Kumar withdrew his resignation on Tuesday following a “clean chit” by Advocate General S Vijayashankar, who said Kumar neither suppressed nor distorted facts while getting a BDA site under the Chief Minister’s discretionary quota.
“I am withdrawing my resignation following the AG’s opinion that I have not taken the site by violating law or suppressing facts. I am thankful to people of my constituency and my party leaders for being supportive,” said Kumar at a press conference here on Tuesday at his residence. He also resumed work immediately after the press conference.
Asked if its was fair to claim innocence based on the AG’s (who is his subordinate) report, Kumar said, “Learned lawyers are appointed as the AG and I don’t think anybody can influence their opinion. Even courts, sometimes seek the AG’s suggestions and opinions.”
However, RTI activist Bhaskaran, who was responsible for Kumar’s resignation, was not impressed with the AG’s opinion and said he would approach the court soon after going through the AG’s report.
Kumar had put in his papers on June 23 following a newspaper report that accused him of getting a BDA site by suppressing the fact that his mother owned a house in Gayatrinagar besides his family members owning two sites near Nelamangala allotted by a housing cooperative society. Referring to the complaint point by point, the AG held that no dependent member of Kumar’s family was owning a site or a house allotted by BDA at the time of Kumar filing the affidavit and the house owned by his mother was her self-acquisition.
“Kumar’s mother is a retired teacher and a lady of independent means. The house she had owned was acquired from her self-acquisition,” the AG said in an apparent view that she was not dependant on Kumar as argued by Bhaskaran.
On Kumar’s mother and daughter owning sites near Nelamangala, the AG said the sale deeds of both the sites were executed on 3.12.2009, which is almost six months after Kumar executed his affidavit. Kumar filed an affidavit on 22.6.2009. “So, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that he suppressed or distorted the fact in his affidavit. Therefore, he is entitled for allotment of site,” the AG concluded.