BENGALURU: In a major setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the approval given by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to conduct an investigation against him in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.
The court upheld the governor’s approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act on August 16 to investigate the allegations against Siddaramaiah. Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the verdict, dismissing the petition filed by the CM against the Governor’s approval in connection with the sites allotted to his wife Parvathy BM by MUDA, citing lack of merit. The case pertains to allotment of 14 sites worth Rs 56 crore to the chief minister’s wife in the upscale Viajayanagar 3rd Stage in Mysuru for the land relinquished at Kesare village, which was outside Mysuru city limits.
The court specially noted that Siddaramaiah’s son, MLA Dr S Yathindra, had participated in a meeting where a resolution was passed in 2020 to allot 14 sites to his mother on compensatory basis; but the resolution was withdrawn citing its illegality. And yet the 14 sites had remained with her. “What happens to the 14 sites which were granted to CM’s wife on the basis of illegal resolution is a matter of investigation to unearth how and why the rule was bent in favour of CM’s wife. If this does not require investigation, the court fails to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the wife of the CM and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, a windfall,” the court said.
The High Court said the facts narrated in the complaints before the governor seeking an approval for a probe into the case “undoubtedly require investigation against him (Siddaramaiah)”.
The court said Siddaramaiah was “behind the smoke screen” for every benefit that has flown to his wife in terms of the sites allotted to her.
CM’s family obtained undue advantage, says HC
“The Gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind. It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind, by the governor, but abundance of application of mind,” the court said, adding that it was not going to look into sanction granted under Section 218 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at this juncture because the crime is yet to be registered and investigation yet to take place.
In the opinion of the court, “The CM, a leader of the proletariat, the bourgeois and of any citizen, should not fight shy of any investigation. There is lurking suspicion, looming large allegations, and the beneficiary of Rs 56 crore is the family of the CM. Judging from the facts, the irresistible conclusion is, an investigation becomes necessary.”
The court observed that prima facie the CM’s family had obtained undue advantage because the compensatory sites were allotted in an upscale area for the land acquired in a down-market area. “This is enough circumstances for undue influence by a public servant to benefit his own family,” the court said, adding that for undue influence, there need not be any recommendation or any order passed by a public servant … “The petitioner (Siddaramaiah) is undoubtedly behind the smoke screen for every benefit that has flown to his wife,” the court said.
Referring to the MUDA (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1991, the court said rules indicate that a citizen who relinquishes property in MUDA would be entitled for two sites measuring 40’x60’, which would amount to 4,800 sqft for relinquishing more than 3 acres, but Siddaramaiah’s wife was given 14 sites measuring 38,284 sqft amounting to Rs 56 crore, “which shocks the conscience of the court”.
The court also rejected Siddaramaiah’s arguments that the governor should act as per the aid and advice of the council of ministers as obtained under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. Justice Nagaprasanna said the governor can take independent decisions in exceptional circumstances, and this case is one such exception. “Hence, no fault can be found in the action of the governor exercising independent discretion to grant approval, as the decision taken by the council of ministers appointed on the advice of the CM to reject the complaints is not free from bias,” he said.
The 3 acre 16 guntas land in Kesare is said to have been gifted to the CM’s wife by her brother in 2010 after having purchased it in 2004. This land was acquired by MUDA, against which the compensatory sites were allotted in Vijayanagar in Mysuru despite the resolution for the compensatory scheme was withdrawn. The court observed that if the beneficiary were to be a stranger, it would have shown the complainants their door of exit, while it is not, because the beneficiary is the CM’s wife.
TRIAL TO CONTINUE
The High Court refused to stay the verdict for two weeks as sought by CM’s senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi. It also vacated the interim order passed earlier to defer the proceedings pending before the special court. The special court was hearing cases filed by Snehamayi Krishna and TJ Abraham, seeking directions to order a probe into irregularities in MUDA sites allotments. Hence the proceedings before the special court will continue.
