Live
- They always want me to win, and now I feel lucky to have been offered a story like ‘Zebra’: Satyadev Kancharana
- ‘Democracy first, humanity first’: PM Modi in Guyana's parliament on two countries' similarities
- PKL Season 11: Telugu Titans register third straight win to top standings
- Is Pollution Contributing to Your COPD?
- NASA Unveils Underwater Robots for Exploring Jupiter's Moons
- Additional Central forces arrive in violence-hit Manipur
- AR Rahman and Saira Banu’s Divorce: Legal Insights into Common Issues in Bollywood Marriages
- 82.7 pc work completed in HPCL Rajasthan Refinery area: official
- Curfew relaxation extended in 5 Manipur districts on Friday
- Tab scam prompts Bengal govt to adopt caution over fund disbursement
MUDA case: HC adjourns Siddaramaiah's plea against K'taka Guv over nod to launch probe
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision to give nod to launch a probe against the veteran Congress leader in connection with irregularities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam case, to August 31.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision to give nod to launch a probe against the veteran Congress leader in connection with irregularities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam case, to August 31.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order after hearing arguments by senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Singhvi argued that the Governor did not follow the principles of natural justice when granting consent for prosecution against CM Siddaramaiah. He also mentioned that the Governor did not consider the advice given by the Cabinet in this matter.
At this point, the Bench questioned Singhvi whether the Governor is required to take the advice of the Cabinet in matters involving complaints against the Chief Minister. Singhvi responded that the Governor has to take such advice, maintaining that there are limitations to the Governor's powers.
Singhvi further argued that actions like these cannot be used to change an elected government. He emphasized that CM Siddaramaiah did not benefit from the de-notification of the land in question. In 2004, the land was transferred, in 2005 it was converted, and in 2010 it was taken over by the CM’s wife. She had sought plots for her land, which has been wrongly projected as a major scam, he submitted.
Siddaramaiah's counsel also stated that the Governor did not provide sufficient reasons for his decision. In response to a detailed submission, the Governor passed a four-page order, which does not clearly explain the basis for granting permission for investigation.
Singhvi argued that there is no scam, and that CM Siddaramaiah's wife had only received alternative sites for her land. Therefore, the Governor's order should be quashed.
He said that the Governor's decision could lead to problems, asserting that the Governor did not apply any discretion in making this decision. He claimed that no consideration was given to the facts presented to the Governor.
CM Siddaramaiah had previously received temporary relief as the High Court had directed the lower court not to take any decision until August 29.
The Governor gave consent to open an investigation on August 17. Following CM Siddaramaiah's writ petition challenging the order, the High Court took up the matter for hearing on August 19.
Represented by senior counsel Singhvi, the CM has sought interim relief as well as quashing the Governor's order, calling it unconstitutional.
Answering a question regarding the hearing of the case, CM Siddaramaiah said in Bengaluru on Thursday that the court had taken up the matter for hearing and "let's see what happens".
