The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has called K Kavitha, the daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, to give a statement related the Delhi Excise Policy Case on Thursday. Arun Ramchandra Pillai, a businessman from Hyderabad who was detained earlier this week, is anticipated to face her when she appears before the investigators at the ED headquarters.

Pillai has been identified by the ED as a prominent figure in the scheme, which involved the payment of significant kickbacks and the creation of the largest cartel in the South Group. Kavitha is one of the members of the South Group, which was represented by Pillai, Abhishek Boinpalli, and Butchi Babu.The ED inquiry found that Pillai was involved in the kickbacks from the South Group and their recovery from Delhi-based companies. The South Group offered AAP leaders 100 crore in kickbacks, the agency had previously disclosed.

Arun Pillai, Prem Rahul, and Indospirit Distribution Limited are the owners of Indo Spirits, a partnership company. The benami investments of Kavitha and Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy and his son Raghava Magunta were represented by Arun Pillai and Prem Rahul.The study also included variables or COVID-19 risk factors such sex, age, COVID-19 vaccination status, geographical features, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity that were likely to confuse the link between mortality risk and air pollution exposure. The team also took into account pre-existing respiratory disease and non-respiratory health status in a different analysis, as these factors may play a part in the causal route between mortality risk and air pollution.

Kavitha had already been questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in December 2022 in the same case. The ED had filed its first chargesheet in the case last year and has so far undertaken nearly 200 search operations.

The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced, and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority’s approval. The beneficiaries diverted “illegal” gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.