Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru (SP)

Bengaluru, Jun 17: Congress legislators are angry at their aggressive leader and MLC, V S Ugrappa, as they hold him directly responsible for the loss of face the party suffered because of the ignominy of having to face the defeat of the no-confidence motion that was moved, the leaders feel, without proper home work and plan of action. Ugrappa, who is believed to be close to the chief minister, had rallied around the support of the MLCs to the idea of unseating the council chairman through the said motion but miserably failed to succeed.

The Congress leaders are preparing to approach K C Venugopal, All India Congress Committee general secretary, who is in-charge of party affairs in Karnataka. Ugrappa is expected to face tremendous heat particularly so because MLAs and MLCs are coming together to mount an attack against him. It is said that already a legislator from Tumakuru district called Venugopal over phone on Thursday and explained to him about the tarnishing of party's image because of Ugrappa's unwarranted act.

It is gathered that Venugopal told the concerned that he would be visiting the city on June 23, and that he will take necessary steps if complaints if any on the issue are handed over to him in writing on that occasion. Therefore, some MLAs have come together, discussed the issue, and opined that it would be apt to complaint to national leaders of the party, duly taking some MLCs into confidence. Before that, they will be complaining to Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee president, Dr G Parameshwara.

Ugrappa, who moved the motion without holding consultation with party president and thereby caused discomfiture for the party, government's chief whip at the council, Ivan D'Souza, H M Revanna and Abdul Jabbar, are the ones who the legislators believe, have to face the music. There is demand for replacing chief whip, Ivan D'Souza, it is said. Although Siddaramaiah has blamed JD(S) for siding with BJP during vote on the motion, the leaders believe that proper dialogue was not held with JD(S) in advance before moving the motion and their advance assurance of support was not secured.