Gen Singh's reply to summon not direct: J&K House panel

The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council's Privileges Committee has said former army chief V K Singh, who has been asked to appear before it tomorrow, has not given any "direct reply" to its notice over his remarks on alleged pay-offs to state politicians.
"We reviewed his (Gen Singh's) letter yesterday which had come through Speed Post after January 9, and there was no direct reply from him," Chairman of the Privileges Committee and Cong MLC Jugal Kishore told PTI.
"There were no signature of Gen Singh, but that of his lawyer. In the letter, he had enclosed papers of his reply to the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly and asked us to collect the CD from it," he said.

The J&K Legislative Council re-issued a summon to Gen Singh asking him to appear before its Privileges Committee on Jan 22, after he had failed to respond to its earlier notice.
Singh's lawyer had then called Council Chairman Amrit Malhotra and informed him that the former army chief was in Tamil Nadu and would appear in person before the panel on the next date of summons.
"He (Gen Singh) will appear before the panel on January 22," the Council Chairman had said on January 10.

"We had sent him letters (seeking his reply), but he had not answered properly. We had called for his reply before January 9, but there was no reply. Therefore summons were issued on that day," Privileges Committee chief Kishore said.

Gen Singh was asked to appear before the Privileges Committee on January 9 to explain his position on his remarks that politicians in the state were paid by the army.
Meanwhile, the Legislative Council had ordered a probe into the reported refusal to accept the reply letter of Gen Singh by some staffers here.
The Council Chairman said, "The issue would be probed. It is viewed seriously. How can anybody of our staff refuse to accept any letter sent to the Council office? And for that matter, it was Gen Singh's reply to his summon."
Those responsible for refusing to take the letter would be punished, he said, adding that the action amounted to dereliction of duty.