)
G Bhavani Singh, sacked Special Public Prosecutor in the Rs 66.65 crore disproportionate asset case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, today said he would move the Supreme Court challenging his removal.
Singh, a senior advocate, filed a petition in the High Court challenging his removal in the case but withdrew it today so as to move the apex court.
"I have been instructed to withdraw the petition as my client has been advised to move the Supreme Court", counsel for Singh submitted before Justice A S Bopanna, who allowed it after State Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar said he has no objections.
In a sudden development, Karnataka government issued a notification on Monday withdrawing the appointment of Singh as SPP with immediate effect but cited no reason for the action.
The government notification came within days of DMK General Secretary Anbazhagan moving the High Court against the February 2 appointment of Singh alleging serious lapses on his part in the trial. The Court on Monday ordered issue of notice to the State government on his petition.
When this petition came up for hearing today, government counsel submitted a memo, with the notification of withdrawing the appointment of Singh.
Counsel for AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa and others who have filed applications for permission to implead themselves in it, submitted that they were "totally in the dark" about the withdrawal of Singh's appointment and as to who has sought such an action.
Further hearing in the case was adjourned to next week.
Jayalalithaa had been charged with accumulating Rs 66.65 crore wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income when she was Chief Minister from 1991 to 1996.
A Special Court here is trying the case. The Judge M S Balakrishna yesterday ajourned the hearing to September two as Singh could no longer represent the prosecution after the notification.
Singh was appointed SPP in consultation with the then acting Chief Justice of High Court K Sreedhar Rao. His petition, which was withdrawn in the High Court today, contended that the Chief Justice was not consulted before the Government issued the notification.
