Bengaluru, Sep 24 (PTI) In a setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the Governor Thaawarchand’s approval for investigation against him in a site allotment case, and dismissed his petition stating that the gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind.
The Chief Minister had challenged the sanction granted by the Governor for an 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.
The Governor on August 16 gave his nod 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.
“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 M Nagaprasanna ruled.
He said: “interim order of any kind subsisting today shall stand dissolved.” After completing the hearings on the petition in six sittings from August 19, the court had reserved its verdict, and had also extended its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people’s representatives, that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the disposal of the petition.
The judge in his order said, the order is read to be restrictive to an approval under Section 17A of the (PC) Act and not an order granting Sanction 218 of BNSS.
He said the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval at the hands of the Governor.
Stating that the approval under the section 17 A of 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.” Accusing Narendra Modi-led NDA government of indulging in vendetta politics against opposition-ruled state governments including the one headed by him, Siddaramaiah rejected the opposition’s demand for his resignation following the High Court verdict.
Alleging opposition’s conspiracy against him and his government, Siddaramaiah, while asserting that he will face them politically, said he will 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…..” 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.” While all Ministers rallied behind the CM, the BJP demanded Siddaramaiah’s resignation.
The complainants in the case including Abraham hailed the High Court’s verdict.
The Governor in the normal circumstance has to act on the aid and advice of the council of Ministers as obtained under the Article 163 of the Constitution of India, the Judge said, “but (the Governor) can take independent decisions in exceptional circumstances, and the present case projects one such exception.” “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 reasons must be in the file. Reasons for the first time cannot be brought before the constitutional court by way of objections,” he added.
The gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind, the Judge further said. “It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind by the Governor, but abundance of application of mind.” The grant of an opportunity of hearing prior to 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,” he added.
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted 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 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.
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. It is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk. PTI KSU GMS RS RS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.