Probe in MUDA case required, beneficiary wife of petitioner, says HC on CM Siddaramaiah’s plea

Bengaluru, Sep 24 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Karnataka High Court while quashing CM Siddaramaiah's petition on Tuesday said the beneficiaries in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case were not outsiders but the petitioner's wife.

The bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order upholding Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision.

The order of the High Court stated, "The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation. In the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside, but the wife of the petitioner (CM Siddaramaiah)."

The order stated, "The complaints were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval at the hands of the Governor."

"The approval under Section 17 A of the PC Act is mandatory in the fact situation. Section 17 A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Cr PC/223 of BNSS against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the act. It is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval. The Governor in normal circumstances has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as obtaining under Article 163 of the Constitution of India, but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances and the present cases on such exception. No fault can be found in the action of the Governor exercising independent discretion to pass the impugned order," it said

"It would suffice if the reasons are recorded in the file of the decision-making authority, particularly of high office, and those reasons succinctly form part of the impugned order. A caveat, reasons must be in the file. Reasons for the first time cannot be brought before the constitutional Court, by way of objections. 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. Grant of an opportunity of hearing prior to approval under Section 17A is not mandatory. If the authority chooses to do so, it is open to it," the court said.

The court's order further mentioned, "The decision of the Governor of alleged hottest haste has not vitiated the order. The order is read to be restrictive to an approval under Section 17A of the Act and not an order granting Sanction 218 of BNSS. Before I say omega, I deem it appropriate to quote what BENJAMIN DISRAELI had to say: “I repeat… that all power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist” For the praefatus reasons, the petition lacking in merit, would necessarily meet its dismissal, and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order of any kind subsisting today, shall stand dissolved. The applications, if any, stand disposed as unnecessary," the order underlined.

Snehamayi Krishna, one of the petitioners in the case has submitted a caveat in the High Court Division Bench regarding the case and pleaded that no order should be passed in the MUDA case without hearing his arguments.

The move has come ahead of CM Siddaramaiah's counsels preparing to file an appeal against the High Court single bench order.

Now, that the verdict has gone against CM Siddaramaiah, the lower court will initiate legal proceedings such as filing of FIR against him in the MUDA case. This will lead to further pressure on the Chief Minister to resign.

Sources confirmed that CM Siddaramaiah will now approach the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court order.

The High Court on September 12 completed the hearing of arguments and counterarguments on the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. While Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the CM, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Governor’s office.

Social activists Pradeep Kumar SP, T.J. Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna had filed petitions against CM Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged MUDA land scam.

They had claimed that Siddaramaiah had misused his office to create fraudulent documents over 3.17 acres of land near Mysuru city and got 14 sites allotted from the MUDA in the name of his wife.

CM Siddaramaiah had refuted the allegations and maintained that the Congress government would fight politically and legally over the permission for prosecution against him in the case granted by the Governor.

Source: IANS