<p>The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the closing of a matter wherein B S Yediyurappa as Karnataka chief minister was accused of helping senior Congress leader D K Shivakumar with denotification of land in Bengaluru in 2010.</p>.<p>“How can it be done behind the back?” a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah asked, even as senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Yediyurappa, and A M Singhvi, representing Shivakumar, contended that the case cannot be re-opened at the instance of an intervenor whose impleadment in the matter was not allowed.</p>.<p>“Any person can come in corruption case,” the bench further observed, as advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for S R Hiremath, president of Samaja Parivartna Samudaya submitted, “We intervened in 2016 as the prosecution by Lokayukta did not proceed in the case.”</p>.<p>Rohatgi, however, submitted that the special leave petition had been withdrawn. This application for revival is by an intervenor who has no concern, he said.</p>.<p>Singhvi also submitted that it was a private complaint and the high court had quashed it. “How can intervenor be allowed to reopen it, even notice was not issued,” he asked.</p>.<p>The court observed that the propriety demands that it can’t be closed like this. The court adjourned the hearing, saying, “We will hear it some other day.”</p>.<p>Shivakumar himself was was present during the hearing in the court room.</p>.<p>Hiremath has sought to recall the order of Feb 21, this year whereby the petition filed by Kabballegowda was “dismissed as withdrawn”.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the closing of a matter wherein B S Yediyurappa as Karnataka chief minister was accused of helping senior Congress leader D K Shivakumar with denotification of land in Bengaluru in 2010.</p>.<p>“How can it be done behind the back?” a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah asked, even as senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Yediyurappa, and A M Singhvi, representing Shivakumar, contended that the case cannot be re-opened at the instance of an intervenor whose impleadment in the matter was not allowed.</p>.<p>“Any person can come in corruption case,” the bench further observed, as advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for S R Hiremath, president of Samaja Parivartna Samudaya submitted, “We intervened in 2016 as the prosecution by Lokayukta did not proceed in the case.”</p>.<p>Rohatgi, however, submitted that the special leave petition had been withdrawn. This application for revival is by an intervenor who has no concern, he said.</p>.<p>Singhvi also submitted that it was a private complaint and the high court had quashed it. “How can intervenor be allowed to reopen it, even notice was not issued,” he asked.</p>.<p>The court observed that the propriety demands that it can’t be closed like this. The court adjourned the hearing, saying, “We will hear it some other day.”</p>.<p>Shivakumar himself was was present during the hearing in the court room.</p>.<p>Hiremath has sought to recall the order of Feb 21, this year whereby the petition filed by Kabballegowda was “dismissed as withdrawn”.</p>
