Advertisement
The High Court on September 12 completed its hearing in the case, and reserved its orders, while extending its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people’s representatives that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the disposal of the petition.
The case is listed for pronouncement of order before the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna on Tuesday.
The Governor on August 16 accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions submitted to him by complainants Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
Related Articles
Advertisement
In the petition, the Chief Minister submitted that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.
Siddaramaiah sought quashing of 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.
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been “acquired” by the MUDA.
The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. Some Opposition leaders and activists have also claimed that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land.