Siddaramaiah’s family has been accused of illegally obtaining 14 sites — at a prime locality in Mysuru — as compensation from the MUDA over the alleged illegal encroachment of 3.16 acres of land by the local development authority.
Published Sep 24, 2024 | 12:36 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 24, 2024 | 12:56 PM
CM Siddaramaiah. (Supplied)
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 24 September, dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah seeking to quash an order issued by state Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot granting sanction to prosecute him in the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna who took up the petition said the facts mentioned in it needed investigation.
“Order does not suffer from non-application of mind by Governor,” the court said adding that the interim order on the petition would stand dissolved from Tuesday.
“The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all the acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed,” said Justice Nagaprasanna reported LiveLaw.
Justice Nagaprasanna said he would read the summary of the findings.”The approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory under the facts and situation. Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code or 220 of BNSS against a public servant. It is the duty of the complaint to seek such an approval”.
The judge also noted that the Governor could make independent decisions.
“The Governor in normal circumstances has to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers as obtained under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. But can make independent decisions in exceptional circumstances. The present case projects one such exception. No fault can be found with the Governor exercising independent discretion to pass the impound order….,” said Justice Nagaprasanna
“The decision of the Governor of the alleged hot haste has not vitiated the order. The order is restrictive to approval under section 17(A) of the Act and not an order granting sanction under 218 of the BNSS,” he added.
When Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, sought the court to consider staying the order for two weeks, Justice Nagaprasanna said: “I cannot stay my own order. The order will be made available by 2.30 pm (on Tuesday). The interim order will stand dissolved from today.”
On 17 August, Gehlot permitted to prosecute Siddaramaiah in the MUDA land allotment case.
In the order of prosecution, the Governor said he is prima facie “satisfied” that the allegations and the supporting materials disclose the commission of offences.
The Governor also termed as “irrational” the decision taken by the Council of Ministers advising him to withdraw his show cause notice to the chief minister and to reject the application seeking prosecution sanction.
The order, accessed by South First, stated that the sanction of the prosecution was granted under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 218 of the Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences mentioned in the petitions.
Governor Gehlot permitted the prosecution following petitions filed by TJ Abraham, Pradeep Kumar SP, and Snehamayi Krishna. The primary petition was filed by the activist-advocate TJ Abraham, alleged that the offences were committed under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 59, 61, 62, 201, 227, 228, 229, 239, 314, 316(5), 318(1), 318(2), 318(3), 319, 322, 324, 324(1), 324(2), 324(3), 335, 336, 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
He further sought investigation under Section 17A of the PC Act, Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Section 19 of the PC Act.
Siddaramaiah’s family has been accused of illegally obtaining 14 sites — at a prime locality in Mysuru — as compensation from the MUDA over the alleged illegal encroachment of 3.16 acres of land by the local development authority.
The MUDA had allotted plots to his wife Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 percent of developed land to the land losers instead of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts.
BJP leaders have claimed that the MUDA “scam” is of the magnitude of ₹4,000 crore to ₹5,000 crore.
The Congress government on 14 July, constituted a single-member inquiry commission under former High Court Judge Justice PN Desai to probe the MUDA ‘scam’.
(With inputs from Mahesh M Goudar. Edited by Muhammed Fazil)
