Bengaluru: The institution of a commission of inquiry into the MUDA sites complaints itself indicates that there is an anxiety to get the matter probed, senior advocate K G Raghavan argued before the High Court of Karnataka on Monday.
He was advancing his arguments on behalf of one of the three complainants against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathy B M and others in the alternative sites allotment controversy.
Raghavan said that the Governor’s sanction/approval for investigation against Siddaramaiah under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act should be looked at from the point of view of purity in public administration and said that the public confidence in administration was eroded.
“The very fact that a commission of inquiry has been constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act itself indicates that there is an anxiety to get this matter inquired into because it is a matter of public importance which has been referred to by the order of the Governor. If it was a matter in which no enquiry was required to be done, why was the commission of inquiry instituted,” he said.
Raghavan said that a strong needle of suspicion is at Siddaramaiah since he was twice deputy chief minister and once the chief minister during the period from 1998 to 2018.
He said the alternative sites were allotted in favour of Siddaramaiah’s wife in 2021 under the 50:50 scheme of 2015 for the lands utilised by MUDA in 2003-04. He further said that MUDA had passed a resolution in December 2017 when Siddaramaiah was the chief minister and the same resolution was based to execute sale deed for 14 alternative sites in favour of Parvathy in 2022.
‘Cheese for chalk’
Raghavan said that a compensation of Rs 3,24,000 was deposited in the treasury at the time of final notification for the acquisition of 3.16 acres in question in 1998. “The property is worth Rs 3.24 lakh (in 1998) and what is the value of the 14 sites given (in 2022)? No application of mind by the authority. The exchange was cheese for chalk. That is the allegation and should not that be inquired?” he asked.
‘Fraud infinite in variety’
Raghavan cited a book on ‘Fraud and Mistake’ and said that man has been inventing new schemes of fraud and hence courts have always declined to define it or to define undue influence. “Fraud is never committed in daylight. It is always done undercover,” Ragahvan said.
Justice M Nagaprasanna adjourned the hearing to September 9, after Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty requested time to respond to submissions made on his opinion to the state government on the Governor’s notice.
The court extended the interim order until September 9 and indicated that hearing, including the reply submissions by Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, should culminate by September 12.