CBI argues YV Subba Reddy is part of conspiracy in contract to Indu Projects

HYDERABAD: The Central Bureau of India (CBI) on Friday told the Telangana High Court that Y.V. Subba Reddy, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) board chairman and a relative of the late Chief Minister Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy, was part of the conspiracy drawn up by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and his group to obtain costly land parcels in various parts of undivided Andhra Pradesh under the guise of developing housing projects in the name of M/s Indu Projects Pvt Ltd.

Both sides completed their argument and the court reserved the orders.

CBI counsel N. Nagendar furnished documentary evidence to the High Court to show that the contract to build low and medium-income group housing as well as villas at Gachibowli, Kukatpally and Nagole was accorded to Indu Projects by the AP Housing Board during the tenure of Rajashekar Reddy.

CBI counsel explained to the court how Indu Projects and other companies like Soma and Unity were excluded from the housing project at Gachibowli, and Subba Reddy was included in that site. CBI counsel said that the project allocation was supervised from the beginning by Rajashekar Reddy.

The CBI furnished these arguments before a bench of  Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who was hearing the petition filed by Subba Reddy seeking to quash his name from the FIR registered by CBI in relation to the Jagan Mohan Reddy's disproportionate assets case.

CBI counsel submitted that the entry of Subba Reddy into the housing project was by the back door. His criminal intent was apparent as he had invested a meagre amount of Rs 11 lakh to become a 50-per cent shareholder in the 4.23-acre high-cost housing project at Gachibowli. The precondition to get the contract was that the bidder should have completed works worth Rs 100 crore in the construction field. But, with a record of only work valued at a few lakh rupees, Subba Reddy had entered the project. This was not informed to the APHB, the CBI said.

Subba Reddy’s counsel argued that there was no evidence of illegal gratification or demand for consideration. The CBI had registered the case against his client under Section 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not applicable to him.