Karnataka High Court Postpones MUDA Case Hearing to January 27; Orders Lokayukta ADGP to Provide Report
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Karnataka High Court's Dharwad Bench has postponed the hearing on a demand for a CBI investigation into alleged MUDA irregularities to January 27, while directing the Lokayukta ADGP to submit a report ahead of the next session.
Key Takeaways
- The Karnataka High Court adjourned the MUDA case hearing to January 27.
- The Lokayukta ADGP is required to submit an investigation report by January 16.
- Concerns were raised about the impartiality of the current investigation.
- Chief Minister Siddaramaiah faces serious allegations regarding MUDA site allocations.
- The case involves multiple senior legal representatives.
Dharwad (Karnataka), Jan 15 (NationPress) The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has postponed the hearing regarding a request for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged irregularities within the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) until January 27.
The bench, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, further instructed the Lokayukta Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) to present the investigation report to the court one day before the next hearing.
Senior counsel Maninder Singh represented the petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, while senior counsels Professor Ravivarma Kumar and Abhishek Manu Singhvi defended Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Kapil Sibal and Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty acted on behalf of the state government.
Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave represented the fourth accused, landowner Devaraju.
The bench requested counsel to limit their arguments to whether the case should be transferred to the CBI.
The court also inquired why the Karnataka Lokayukta had not yet submitted the investigation report.
The Lokayukta’s counsel, Venkatesh Arabatti, was instructed to provide the report detailing investigation findings by January 16.
Counsel Maninder Singh emphasized the necessity for an unbiased investigation to foster public trust.
“Conducting an impartial investigation is challenging when political figures are involved. An independent probe is essential. The police assigned by the state government are managing the investigation, and Lokayukta police officers operate on deputation, making an unbiased inquiry difficult,” he articulated.
“The accused illegally obtained sites valued at Rs 56 crore. The Chief Minister’s wife hastily returned these sites. The state government appears intent on shielding the accused, having consented to the immediate acceptance of site returns,” he added.
Furthermore, counsel Maninder Singh noted that officials from the Urban Development Department had removed 145 files, and the Deputy SP of Mysuru Lokayukta had documented this issue.
Counsel Prof. Kumar objected, asserting that this argument was not pertinent to the MUDA case.
The High Court Bench intervened, questioning counsel Singh on the relevance of his submission to the MUDA case.
In response, Singh indicated that the Lokayukta Deputy SP had not specified which files were taken, suggesting that files relevant to the case might also be among them.
Counsel Kapil Sibal requested additional time to file objections to the writ petition.
In light of this, the bench adjourned the proceedings to January 27.
Petitioner Snehamayi Krishna had filed a petition requesting a CBI investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, expressing doubt that the Lokayukta could guarantee a transparent probe.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is currently under investigation by the Lokayukta and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly securing 14 MUDA sites for his family in violation of regulations.
The Chief Minister has sought the dismissal of proceedings against him in the MUDA case.
He faces charges under various sections of the IPC including 120B, 166, 403, 406, 420, 426, 465, 468, 340, and 351.
Moreover, he is charged under Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 3, 53, and 54 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act.
