Revanna’s Turn to Face Charges of 'Misusing Housing Facilities'

From Our Special Correspondent
Daijiworld Media Network - Bangalore

Bangalore, Nov 2: The adage, ''those living in glass houses, should not throw stones at others," might turn out to be true in the case of former minister and JD(S) floor leader in the Assembly H D Revanna, who had created a minor flutter in political circles by alleging that state assembly Speaker K G Bopaiah had availed of double salaries and benefits for his post as well as those for his former post of deputy speaker during the months of November and December 2009.
 
Though Revanna had claimed that he had obtained ''documentary evidence" for leveling his charges against the Speaker through the Right to Information route from the officers concerned in the House, it later transfired that the information was ''wrongly" given and two officers in the legislature secretariat had been placed under suspension for giving the ''wrong and misleading" information.
 
Now, former union minister and senior BJP leader V Dhananjay Kumar, who is also the state government’s Special Representative in New Delhi, on Tuesday accused Revanna of ''misusing of government’s housing facilities’’ when he was the minister in the Dharam Singh ministry.

Kumar alleged that Revanna had drawn house rent allowances even after being allotted a VIP room in the Legislators’ Home (LH) when he was Public Works and Energy Minister in the Congress-JD(S) coalition government.

Before allotment of a bungalow, Revanna was allotted the room in the LH and stayed there more than six months, Kumar said.

During the six months that Revanna had stayed in the VIP Room in the LH,  the BJP leader said the JD(S) leader had also drawn house rent allowances of Rs. 20,000 per month and other facilities.

After moving to the official ministerial bungalow, he not paid the LH room rent of Rs. 1.60 lac to the government, Kumar alleged.

The then speaker Krishna, who belonged to JD (S), had served a notice on Revanna asking him to clear rooms rent bills of LH.

But Revanna in his reply, according to Kumar, had stated that he had not occupied the LH room and therefore a question of paying the bill does not arise.

The BJP leader said the Legislative Assembly Secretariat records clearly indicated that Revanna had not paid the bills to the State exchequer and at the same time drawn house rent and other allowances by occupying LH room.

''Revanna has no moral right to criticise others on misuse of the government facilities,  when he himself had indulged in such acts," Kumar said.

HDK’s performance as MP 'dismal'

The BJP leader also hit out at JD(S) State president and former chief minister H D Kumaraswamy, for not utilising the MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) fund as an MP.

Out of Rs 1crore sanctioned under the MPLAD for Bangalore Rural constituency, Kumaraswamy spent just Rs. 31 lac so far. 

''Instead of taking up development works in his constituency, Kumaraswamy concentrated on dislodging the BJP Government by luring rebel BJP MLAs. The former Chief Minister’s performance as a MP was dismal,’’ he alleged.

He dismissed the claims of JD(S) leader and former law minister M C Nanariah that Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa had no powers to exceed the Cabinet strength beyond 31 following 19 vacancies in the Legislative Assembly and contended that the arguments were not valid.

Nanaiah’s argument does not hold water

The former union minister contended that that Article 164 of the Constitution clearly stipulated that the Cabinet strength should not exceed 15 per cent of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly (225).
Nanaiah has been deliberating raising constitutional issues which would not stand before the court of law, he claimed.

Nanaiah had argued that the existing strength of the assembly is 205 and the 15 per cent of it means 31 ministers. But Kumar said that the 15 per cent criteria referred to the total strength and not the existing strength of the House.

''The vacancies arising out of disqualification or resignations will be filled up within the stipulated six months after the vacancies arise. The strength of the House, therefore, remained the same though there might be temporary vacancies," Kumar argued.