CM Bommai proposes institution, similar to PMs' Museum in Delhi, for Karnataka CMs
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Saturday said he felt there is a need to open an institution, on the lines of Prime Ministers' Museum in New Delhi, representing the struggle for the state's unification and major contributions made by all chief ministers.
He pointed out that this was just an idea at the moment, and a programme in this regard may be prepared after discussing with all persons concerned.
"Our future generation should not forget those who built Karnataka. Their sacrifices, farsightedness, ideals and principles have ensured that the state stands. So, remembering them and their works, and informing it to the future generation is our duty," Bommai said.
Speaking to reporters here, he said ample literature regarding the contributions is already available, but it should be prepared regarding all chief ministers, and promoted among today's youth.
"What I feel is there is need for a museum that represents - the mindset of the people and situation that existed when Karnataka became a state, how minds of people from various regions came together, leading to the fight for Karnataka Ekikarana (unification). Also, various agitations or movements that took place in the interest of the state, and also major decisions taken by all Chief Ministers, on the lines of the Prime Ministers' Museum in Delhi," he added.
The Chief Minister was speaking after unveiling the statue of K C Reddy, the first chief minister of Mysuru state (now Karnataka) at Vidhana Soudha here.
He also said Reddy has left behind a rich legacy and that the state government is ready to provide all cooperation to set up a memorial of Reddy in his hometown in Kolar.
Noting that Reddy, a veteran freedom fighter, hailed from a farmer's family and worked as an advocate and journalist, while also floating a party, 'Prajapratinidhi', Bommai said during four-and-half years of governance, the first CM helped in formulating legislation keeping in view the state's future, and building the government machinery.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Court in Bengaluru defers order on ED plea against ‘B Report’ in MUDA land allotment case
Bengaluru (PTI): A special court for people’s representatives here on Tuesday deferred its order on a petition filed by ED against the ‘B Report’ filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta police in the MUDA land allotment case.
The report has cleared Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of wrongdoing. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the complainant, activist Snehamaayi Krishna, have filed objections challenging the report and demanded a deeper probe.
During the hearing, the presiding judge Santosh Gajanan Bhat stated that a decision on the B Report would be taken only after the Lokayukta police submits a complete investigation report.
As a result, the court adjourned the proceedings and posted the next hearing for May 7.
The court also granted the Lokayukta police permission to continue its investigation, following a request made by the agency.
Earlier, the Mysuru division of the Lokayukta police had submitted an initial report based on its inquiry into allegations against Siddaramaiah and three others.
However, the court observed that the investigation should not be limited to just four individuals and directed the police to probe all those involved and file a comprehensive report.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), in which CM Siddaramaiah has been accused of misusing his position.
The allegations suggest that residential sites were allotted in violation of norms and procedures, potentially benefiting certain individuals, including Siddaramaiah’s family members.
The complaint filed by activist Snehamaayi Krishna prompted the Lokayukta to initiate an investigation.
A ‘B Report’—essentially a closure report indicating no evidence of wrongdoing—was later filed, stating there was no sufficient material to prosecute the accused.
However, this report has now been contested, with both the ED and the complainant arguing that crucial aspects of the case were overlooked or insufficiently examined.
