HC issues notice on CM Siddaramaiah's appeal against single bench order in MUDA case

Bengaluru, Dec 5 (PTI) Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued a notice to the state government and other respondents on an appeal filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the single judge bench's order upholding the Governor's decision granting approval for investigation against him in the MUDA site allotment case.

The division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind posted the matter for further hearing on January 25, 2025.

On October 24, the CM filed an appeal before the division bench of the High Court, challenging the decision of a single judge bench, which had come as a setback to him.

Siddaramaiah is facing allegations of illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi B M by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, argued that the Governor lacks the constitutional authority to grant such sanction against a chief minister.

"The Governor does not have the power to approve the prosecution of a chief minister. This is a larger constitutional issue," he said.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, argued that the sanction violated Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires preliminary investigation by a police officer.

"...the Governor is always bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The Governor can only interfere if there is manifest illegality in the council's advice," he added.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna on September 24 dismissed the CM's petition challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's approval for a probe against him in the case, observing that the gubernatorial order nowhere "suffers from want of application of mind".

Siddaramaiah had then challenged the legality of Gehlot's approval for the investigation against him in the alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites by MUDA in a prime locality which was based on three petitions filed by -- T J Abraham, Pradeep Kumar and Snehamayi Krishna.

Following the High Court single bench order, a Special Court here on the very next day had ordered a Lokayukta police probe against Siddaramaiah, and directed to file the investigation report by December 24.

Siddaramaiah, his wife, brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy and Devaraju -- from whom Swamy had purchased a land and gifted it to Parvathi -- and others have been named in the FIR registered by the Mysuru-located Lokayukta police establishment on September 27, following the Special Court order.

On September 30, the ED filed an enforcement case information report (ECIR) to book the CM and others taking cognisance of the Lokayukta FIR, and is also probing the case.

Meanwhile, Devaraju, represented by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, claimed he had been unnecessarily implicated in the case.

"My client is 80 years old and has been dragged into a political battle. He has no involvement in this matter," Dave argued, requesting the court to stay criminal proceedings against him. He also pointed to a plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the MUDA case, scheduled for hearing on December 10.

The Bench assured Devaraju that his concerns would be considered separately, linking him to a "lotus in murky water". However, it declined to issue an immediate stay.

Senior Advocates KG Raghavan and Maninder Singh appeared for the private complainants who had sought the Governor's sanction for Siddaramaiah's prosecution.

In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that 14 compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife in an upmarket area in Mysuru (Vijayanagar Layout 3rd and 4th stages), which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by MUDA.

The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where it 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.

It is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village on the outskirts of Mysuru. However, as the site allocation triggered a controversy, Parvathi wrote to MUDA asking it to cancel 14 sites allotted to her, and the MUDA had accepted it. PTI