High Court dismisses Siddaramaiah’s petition
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court this noon dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s plea challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to sanction his prosecution in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam.
The High Court’s ruling came in response to CM Siddaramaiah’s petition against the Governor’s approval for an investigation into illegalities related to the allotment of 14 MUDA sites to his wife, B.M. Parvathi, in a prime area of Mysuru city.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a Single Judge Bench, held that the complainants were justified in filing the complaint and seeking Governor’s approval.
The Bench also clarified that it is the complainant’s responsibility to seek approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing the Governor to make independent decisions.
No fault in Guv action
“There is no fault in the Governor’s action in granting permission for investigation, as he independently exercised his powers,” Justice Nagaprasanna stated.
The Governor, in a six-page letter issued in August, accorded sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of offences as mentioned in the petitions of social activists T.J. Abraham, S.P. Pradeep Kumar and Snehamayi Krishna.
The HC observed the three private complainants were justified in registering their complaint and seeking approval from the Governor for prosecuting the CM.
Facts warrant investigation
The Court further observed, “The facts presented in the petition warrant an investigation, especially considering that the beneficiaries of the alleged acts are the petitioner’s own family. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
Regarding the application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court emphasized, “Approval under Section 17A is mandatory in this situation. The Act does not require a Police officer to seek approval in private complaints registered under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 220 of BNSS. The duty falls on the complainant to seek such approval.”
Guv did not act in ‘hot haste’
Addressing the role of the Governor in seeking advice from the Council of Ministers, the Court ruled, “While the Governor typically acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he can exercise independent discretion in exceptional cases, as demonstrated here. No fault can be found in the Governor’s decision.”
The High Court ruled that the Governor’s sanction was not issued in ‘hot haste’ and was based on careful consideration. “The decision was marked by an ‘abundance of application of mind,’ and the order is limited to approval under Section 17A of the Act, not a sanction under Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,” the Court added.
Controversial scheme
In the MUDA ‘scam’, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife 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. The Opposition has claimed that the MUDA scam is of the magnitude of Rs. 4,000 crore to Rs. 5,000 crore.
This post was published on September 24, 2024 8:21 pm