Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday passed an interim order directing the special court to defer its proceedings and not to precipitate the matter against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the complaints pertaining to Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) sites allotment.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order on the petition filed by Siddaramaiah challenging the validity of the governor’s order according sanction for investigation.
“Since the matter is being heard by this court and the pleadings are yet to get complete, till the next date of hearing, the concerned court shall defer its proceedings and not precipitate the matter till the next date of hearing,” Justice Nagaprasanna said, adjourning the matter to August 29.
Two complaints were filed before the special court on similar sets of facts. On August 13, the special court had reserved orders to August 20, 2024 on the admissibility of one of the complaints filed by one Shehamayi Krishna, a resident of Mysuru. It had adjourned further hearing on another complaint filed by TJ Abraham.On August 17, Governor Tawarchand Gehlot had granted sanction under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after considering the applications filed by three complainants.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, submitted that the governor’s order does not address a single reason as to why the sanction has to be granted and thus lacks application of mind. He said the complaint was placed before the governor on July 26, 2024 and on the same day a show cause notice was issued to the Chief Minister. The cabinet responded to the show cause notice with a 100-page reply, he said.
“A blanket order was issued on the sole ground there is conflict of interest saying that the cabinet is the alter ego of the Chief Minister, a potential accused, even though the Chief Minister did not attend the meeting,” Singhvi said, adding that the governor’s order does not answer point wise the explanation given in the cabinet decision.
He further claimed that though the governor’s order is awaited in as many as 12 similar applications, only this order was passed at a breakneck speed.Singhvi said sanction under section 17A is sought only when the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant. However, the allegation against Siddaramaiah is that he is the beneficiary and not that he was a decision maker. He claimed an investigation is sought for events that happened from 1992 to 2022.
The complaints pertain to the allotment of 14 compensatory sites in favour of Parvathy BM, wife of Siddaramaiah, in prime locations of Mysuru city, in violation of the rules. It is alleged that though Parvathy had no legal title over 3.16 acres land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba hobli, Mysuru taluk, compensatory sites were allotted to her in developed layouts in the city.