Ktka HC allows graft probe against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for windfall gain of Rs 56 Cr [Read Order]

Karnataka: In a major blow to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the High Court on Tuesday allowed an investigation against for his alleged involvement into the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam in connection with allotment of 14 prime sites in the name of his wife.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected Siddaramaiah's challenge to Governor Thawarchand Gehlot’s August 16 decision to sanction the investigation, after noting windfall gain of Rs 56 Cr for his wife.

"It shocks the conscience of the Court as to how much is given to the petitioner as against 4,800 sq.ft., it is 38,284 sq.ft. 2 sites become 14 sites. The wife of the petitioner is now the proud owner of 14 sites worth Rs 56 crores," the court said.

"How and why the Rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into. If this does not require investigation, I fail to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the family of the petitioner and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, it is in fact a windfall," the judge added.

The court said though the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a state. However, this was a case where “exceptional circumstances” justified the decision to sanction.

In July, three anti-corruption activists T J Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar approached the governor for sanction to file complaints against Siddaramaiah.

They alleged that his wife Parvathi received 14 housing sites from MUDA in exchange for a 3.16-acre plot of land that MUDA illegally acquired in 2021 during the previous BJP-led government’s tenure. This allegedly resulted in a Rs. 55.80 crore loss for the state.

In its judgment, the High Court said, "The gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from the want of application of mind. It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind by the Governor but the abundance of application of mind".

The judge opined granting an opportunity for hearing prior to grant of approval under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not mandatory if the authority chooses to do so it is open to it.

The court said that the approval of the competent authority, which in this case is the Governor, is mandatory for beginning an inquiry or probe against a public servant under Section 17 A of the Act.

“The approval under Section 17 A of the PC Act is mandatory in the current situation. Section 17 A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of CrPC or 223 of the BNSS against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act,” the bench said.

The court rejected a plea by Siddaramaiah's counsel seeking an extension of the stay on proceedings in the special court to facilitate the filing of appeal in the Supreme Court.

The court pointed the Rules would indicate that a citizen who relinquishes the property in MUDA would be entitled to 2 sites measuring 40x60 which would amount to 4,800 sq.ft. for relinquishing more than 3 acres.

"If the beneficiary were to be a stranger, this Court would have shown the complainants their door of exit, while it is not. The beneficiary is, the family of the petitioner, not today, right from 2004, the day on which the Brother-in-law purchases the property and more so, from 2010 when he gifts the property to the wife of the petitioner. Even if it is taken that there are allegations from 2010, it would suffice for an investigation," the judge said.
 [Read Order]