High Court adjourns hearing to Sept. 2 afternoon

Bengaluru: The Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna hearing the petition seeking to quash the Governor’s sanction order (to prosecute the CM) in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site scam, adjourned the hearing to Sept. 2.

The Court also refused to allow proceedings in the Trial Court till the matter is being heard before the High Court.

The Court yesterday heard the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Governor and Senior Counsel Maninder Singh representing one of the complainants, Snehamayi Krishna in the   morning session.

In the afternoon session, senior advocate Prabhuling Navadagi, appearing for one of the complainants Pradeep Kumar, said the question of Governor consulting the Cabinet before sanctioning prosecution order against the Chief Minister did not arise as the Article 163 (Constitution of India) does not bifurcate between Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister and here the allegation was against the CM.

Navadagi stated that the terms of reference of the four-member inquiry committee and subsequently the single member inquiry commission imply there is prima facie, huge irregularity in the MUDA and hence the requirement to investigate. Governor’s order too is in the same spirit.

Navadagi further said that Siddaramaiah was the CM when his wife sought compensation and when 14 sites were allotted, he was the Leader of the Opposition.

Ranganath Reddy, counsel for T.J. Abraham, one of the complainants, said B.M. Mallikarjunswamy the brother-in-law of the petitioner (CM) had purchased, applied for conversion and also gifted a non-existent agricultural land of 3 acres and 16 guntas to his sister and CM Siddaramaiah’s wife B.M. Parvathi as the land in question in Kesare village had already been acquired by MUDA in 1992 and was known as Devanur Layout with developed sites.

CM’s son and then MLA Dr. Yathindra Siddaramaiah was present at the MUDA Board meeting when the compensation application (50:50 ratio) was being discussed, stated Reddy.

“Also, due influence of the CM in the case cannot be ruled out because 14 compensatory sites were given to CM’s wife and not to the original title holder who is no more.  The petitioner (Siddaramaiah) was the Deputy Chief Minister when the land was denotified in 1998 and also when it was converted,” he argued.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar represented Siddaramaiah yesterday. Primary submissions by Siddaramaiah’s Counsel already concluded earlier this week, although Singhvi had said that he would make rejoinder submissions after the respondents finish their arguments. The Court will hear the case on Sept. 2 afternoon.