Karnataka High Court dismisses Siddaramaiah’s petition; CM likely to face probe

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disregarded Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition tough the Governor’s acclaim for investigation against him in a web site online allotment case. He challenged the Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot for an investigation against him within the alleged irregularities within the allotment of 14 websites to his wife by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in a serious locality.

After the completion of hearing of the petition, Justice M Nagaprasanna on September 12 reserved its verdict. It also extended its August 19 intervening time order directing the special court for folk’s representatives which change into slated to hear complaints against him within the case, to defer its court cases till the disposal of the petition.

The Justice Nagaprasanna ruled, ” The facts narrated within the petition would without a doubt require investigation, within the teeth of the truth that the beneficiary of all these acts is now now not any one outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands disregarded.” He in the same way said, “intervening time order of any kind subsisting this day shall stand dissolved.”

One August Sixteen, the Governor accorded sanction below Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offenses, mentioned within the petitions submitted to him by complainants Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.

CM Siddaramaiah challenged Governor’s order in Karnataka High Court

The Chief Minister Siddaramaiah moved to the High Court on August 19 tough the legality of the Governor’s order. Through the petition, he submitted that the sanction order change into issued without due application of mind in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, which is binding below Article 163 of the Constitution of India. He questioned the Governor’s order, contending that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations.

While noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar had appeared for Siddaramaiah, Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta represented the office of the Governor. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty also made his submissions. Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Prabhuling K Navadgi, Lakshmi Iyengar, Ranganath Reddy, K G Raghavan, among others made submissions on behalf of the complainants (respondents) who had sought the sanction for investigation against Siddaramaiah.

What is MUDA scam case?

The MUDA web site online allotment case alleged that the compensatory websites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Paravathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared with the position of her land which had been “acquired” by the MUDA. The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi below a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.Sixteen acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.

Less than the MUDA scheme, 50 per cent of developed land change into allotted to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. It is miles alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.Sixteen acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk.

(With PTI Inputs)