Bengaluru, Sep 24 (PTI) In a setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed his petition challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for a probe against him in the MUDA land allotment case, saying the gubernatorial order nowhere “suffers from want of application of mind”.
The Karnataka chief minister had challenged the legality of Gehlot’s sanction for the investigation against him in the alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in a prime locality.
Immediately after the HC verdict, the BJP demanded Siddaramaiah’s resignation, to which the state chief minister hit back and accused the Narendra Modi-led NDA government of indulging in “vendetta” politics against opposition-ruled state governments, including Karnataka. The chief minister also rejected the opposition’s demand for his resignation.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said in normal circumstances, a governor has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution of India, “but (the Governor) can take independent decisions in exceptional circumstances, and the present case projects one such exception” and dismissed Siddaramaiah’s petition.
Asserting that the gubernatorial order nowhere “suffers from want of application of mind”, the Judge said, “It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind by the Governor, but abundance of application of mind.” “No fault can be found with the Governor exercising the independent discretion to pass the impugned order; it would suffice if the reasons are recorded in the file of the decision-making authority, particularly of the high office, and those reasons succinctly form part of the impugned order. A caveat reason must be in the file. Reasons for the first time cannot be brought before the constitutional court by way of objections,” he added.
Reacting to the verdict, senior BJP leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar at a press conference in New Delhi said: “The high court has validated the action of the governor. The BJP demands that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah tender his resignation and make way for a free and independent investigation into the allegations of shameful corruption.” There were similar demands from the state BJP leaders. The Karnataka BJP unit also held a protest against the chief minister.
On his part, Siddaramaiah alleged that the entire controversy was the opposition’s “conspiracy” against him and his government, and said he would face them politically.
“Why should I resign? Has (H D) Kumaraswamy (Union Minister) resigned? He is on bail, ask him….it is only said that inquiry needs to be done. At the inquiry stage itself, resignation is sought. I will answer them…We will face them politically because it is a conspiracy,” Siddaramaiah said at a press conference here.
Accusing the BJP and the JD(S) of “conspiracy, misuse of Raj Bhavan”, the CM said he would not be afraid of them as the people of the state are with him and he and his party have their blessings.
“All Ministers including Deputy CM, MLAs, party leaders, workers and high command are with me. High Command will cooperate with me in continuing the legal fight,” he said.
He also said that he would decide on his next course of action and legal fight after consulting legal experts and party leaders. “I still say I have done no wrong…..,” he asserted.
Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar too said there is no question of Siddaramaiah resigning, as he alleged that there was a “big conspiracy” against the CM. “He has done no wrong in the issue and will come out clean.” Justice Nagaprasanna completed the hearings on the chief minister’s petition in six sittings from August 19, and on September 12 reserved its verdict. It had also extended its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people’s representatives that was slated to hear complaints against the chief minister in the case, to defer its proceedings till the disposal of the petition.
The MUDA case over which Gehlot accorded sanction for investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has its origins more than three decades ago.
The case pertains to the alleged allotment of compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife B M 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 allegedly allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.
Gehlot on August 16 accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions submitted to him by complainants Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.
In the 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 was legally “unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations”.
Reading out the summary of findings, Justice Nagaprasanna said, the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval at the hands of the Governor.
Stating that the approval under section 17 A of the PC Act is mandatory in the fact situation, he said: “Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under section 200 or 223 of BNSS against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act. It is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval.” “The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed,” Justice Nagaprasanna ruled.
The grant of an opportunity of hearing before the approval under section 17A is not mandatory, he further said. “If the authority chooses to do so, it is open to it.” “The decision of the Governor of the alleged hot haste has not vitiated the order. The order is read to be restrictive to approval under section 17 A of the (PC) Act and not an order granting sanction under section 218 of the BNSS,” he added.
As the judge dismissed the petition, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Siddaramaiah, said, “the matter related to dates of the 1990s, and the complaint if filed now..” and requested the bench to consider “a two weeks’ stay.
Responding to this, Justice Nagaprasanna said, “I can’t stay my own order…The petition stands dismissed. Interim order of any kind subsisting today shall stand dissolved.” While Singhvi and Prof 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 K G Raghavan, among others, made submissions on behalf of the complainants (respondents) who had sought the sanction for investigation against Siddaramaiah. PTI KSU GMS RS PYK PYK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.