The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for an investigation against him in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case. The judgment in the case was pronounced by a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna.
Pronouncing the judgment, the bench observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the Governor. The bench further said that it is the duty of the complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Governor can make independent decisions.
“The facts narrated in the petition need investigation. The petition stands dismissed,” the Karnataka High Court said.
The court also said that the order does not suffer from non-application of mind by the Governor, it was not an order in haste.
“The Governor has to act on aid and advice in normal cases but this is an exception,” the court said.
Following the verdict, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Sighvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, asked if the court could stay the order for two weeks, to which the court denied.
With the setback, Siddaramaiah was likely to call a legislators’ party meeting on Wednesday.
On September 12, the High Court had reserved the order in the case, after it had concluded all hearings.
The court had also extended its August 19 interim order, directing the special court for people’s representatives, which was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the disposal of the petition.
MUDA CASE VERDICT: REACTIONS FOLLOW
Soon after the verdict, Karnataka Minister Ramalinga Reddy, while talking to reporters, said, “We have faith in the law. We will fight it out. We will question (the judgment) in the double bench, other bench and Supreme Court. We stand with the Chief Minister.”
As the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) demanded the Chief Minister’s resignation, Reddy said, “Let the Opposition say whatever it wants. What happened with their leaders in the past? Let their investigation also happen. No question of the Chief Minister’s resignation.”
Also reacting to the verdict, activist Snehamayi Krishna, one of the petitioners, said, “Today the High Court rejected the petition. It’s definitely a win for us. It’s a justice for truth. The bench felt that the order of the Governor was maintainable and the required enquiry order had been pronounced. It’s justice for our struggle, we’ll continue our fight for justice. We provided all required documents in special courts for people’s representatives as well. We are expecting an enquiry order from the same.”
Meanwhile, advocate Shivanna, from Siddaramaiah’s legal team, said, “Our first option is a writ appeal before a division bench of the High Court. Some of the observations of the court during the orders were ultra vires and not necessary.”
WHAT IS THE MUDA CASE
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife BM Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been “acquired” by the MUDA.
The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. Some Opposition leaders and activists claimed that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land.
COURT HEARINGS IN MUDA CASE
On August 16, Governor Gehlot accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences. This came after petitions were submitted to him by complainants Pradeep Kumar SP, TJ Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.
In his petition, the Chief Minister submitted that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.
Siddaramaiah sought quashing of the Governor’s order contending that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations.
While noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Professor Ravivarma Kumar appeared for Siddaramaiah, Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta represented the office of the Governor. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty also made his submissions.
Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Prabhuling K Navadgi, Lakshmi Iyengar, Ranganath Reddy, and KG Raghavan, among others, made submissions on behalf of the complainants (respondents) who had sought the sanction for investigation against Siddaramaiah.
Comments
0 comment