KTR flies to Delhi to lodge complaint against Revanth Reddy on AMRUT 2.0 scam

In a rare instance of the principal opposition party in a State lodging an official complaint with the Centre against a Chief Minister, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led by working president KT Rama Rao on Monday on Monday lodged a complaint with union Minister for Urban Affairs Manohar Lal Khattar seeking a probe into the alleged corruption involving A Revanth Reddy’s family in the AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) scheme tenders. The party charged the Chief Minister with violation of the Office of Profit under the Constitution of India and also the Prevention of Corruption Act through misuse of position for personal gains, seeking action including cancellation of contracts found illegal.

Rama Rao, accompanied by BRS MPs KR Suresh Reddy, Vaddiraju Ravichandra, D Damodar Rao and others, met Khattar in Delhi to submit the representation and is expected to address a press conference in this regard on Tuesday.

In the representation, the BRS working president said Sujan Reddy, the brother-in-law of Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, had received contracts worth thousands of crores despite his company lacking necessary qualification. Shodha Infrastructure Limited, owned by Sujan Reddy, was awarded a contract worth Rs 1,137 crore, despite its meagre profit declaration of Rs 2.2 crore for the financial year of 2021-2022.

“The prerequisites for AMRUT tenders are technical expertise and financial stability. Going by the financial statements and the history of the said firm, the allotment seems contentious,” he said.

Rama Rao pointed out that the Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited declared that about 80 per cent of the Rs 1,137 crore work would be executed by Sodha Infrastructure Limited, a company with a financial record of only Rs 2.2 crore profits. “Was there an underlying understanding in the very first stage of allotment or was it a conscious decision of The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd to do it out the goodness of their heart? This needs to be investigated,” he



said.

The former Municipal Administration Minister cautioned that certain decisions could have a lasting impact on public welfare. As local municipalities were the deciding authorities when it comes to allotment of AMRUT tenders, he feared that a Chief Minister could get his way around to get the project allotted to his brother-in-law.

“I also request your rational self to kindly not just investigate the Rs 1,137 crore allotment to Sodha Infrastructure but the entire tender allotment of Rs.8,888.51 crore in Telangana under AMRUT 2.0,” he urged.

He reminded that the public representatives take an oath while pursuing office that they would bear true faith and allegiance to only the Constitution of India. He felt that this AMRUT tender allotment was a direct violation of the Code of Conduct. He stated that public representatives and their family could not start, or participate in, business concerns, engaged in supplying goods or services to that government.

“If that happens, the matter needs to be reported to the Chief Minister. But, if the Chief Minister and his family is directly involved in corrupt practices, who will blow the whistle?” he asked, pointing out that the tender allotment also violates the Office of Profit under Article 191 (1) of the Indian Constitution, Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act of 1951. He cited numerous instances similar to the incident including the office-of-profit case against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, and several other elected representatives.

“The AMRUT 2.0 allotments in Telangana is no different from what led to the famous Ashok Khemka vs. State of Haryana (2014) case, where the State had to compromise the law of the land to ensure profits for Robert Vadra, promoter of DLF and the son-in-law of the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi. How is the AMRUT tender allotment different from that of land allotment done to the Karnataka Chief Minister Siddharamaiah’s involvement in MUDA case,” he asked.