 site allotment case.){kind=link}
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the Governor’s approval for an investigation into alleged irregularities in a Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case. The case involves the allotment of 14 prime sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife in Mysuru, which allegedly favoured his family.
Investigation into Family’s Benefit Required
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while delivering the judgment, stated that the petition’s facts required investigation, as the beneficiaries were not outsiders but Siddaramaiah’s family. He highlighted that the rule was bent to benefit the family, which necessitates further investigation. The interim orders previously passed in the case have now been dissolved.
Governor’s Sanction for Investigation
The investigation was approved by Governor Thaawar chand Gehlot under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The complaints were filed by Pradeep Kumar S.P., T.J. Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna. Siddaramaiah had challenged the Governor’s decision, arguing that it was made without proper application of mind and against Constitutional principles, especially the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Governor’s Discretion Defended
The court ruled that the Governor’s decision was justified and did not suffer from any lack of application of mind. Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that in exceptional circumstances, the Governor can act independently of the Council of Ministers, which was the case here. The approval under Section 17A was deemed necessary, and the decision was not made in haste or without valid reasoning.
Legal Arguments and Dismissal of Stay Request
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar represented Siddaramaiah, while Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta and Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared for the Governor. After the dismissal of the petition, Singhvi requested a two-week stay on the order, which was refused by Justice Nagaprasanna, stating that he could not stay his own order.
The case orbits around the allocation of compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife in an upscale area, raising concerns about preferential treatment and potential misuse of authority.
Cause Title: Siddaramaiah v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Petitioner: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, and others
- Respondents: Advocate General K. Sashikiran Shetty, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, and others