Governor takes his own decision if Cabinet’s advice is biased: Solicitor General
The high court was hearing the plea filed by Siddaramaiah challenging the governor’s decision to grant sanction to prosecute him in the MUDA case
From justifying Karnataka governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to accord sanction to prosecute chief minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) issue, the submissions before the high court on Saturday in Bengaluru ranged to how the CM’s wife, Parvathi, got alternative sites as compensation for a parcel of non-existent land supposed to belong to her.
Lasting for five hours, the submissions were made by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the governor, senior counsel Maninder Singh for social activist Snehamaiyi Krishna, advocate Ranganath Reddy for social activist TJ Abraham and senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi for Pradeep Kumar (all complainants against the chief minister) made out a case of the prosecution sanction being in order.
The high court was hearing the plea filed by Siddaramaiah challenging the governor’s decision to grant sanction to prosecute him in the MUDA issue. It pertains to allegations of corruption and irregular allocation of 14 plots to Siddaramaiah’s wife as compensation by MUDA for 3.16 acre of land taken by MUDA to develop into plots, which she claims was not acquired but encroached by the agency.
Justice M Nagaprasanna hearing the case granted interim relief to Siddaramaiah from the special courts of taking any action against him till the disposal of the matter in his court. The next hearing of the case is on September 2.
Referring to the cabinet meeting’s note to the governor “advising’’ him not to prosecute the chief minister, Mehta cited a previous judgment that said if the advice of the council of ministers is irrational or shows bias, then governor will have to act on his own, apply his mind independently to whether a prima facie case is made out.
On the application of mind by the governor while granting sanction, Mehta said the complainant Abraham appeared before the governor and that the latter dictated his own prima facie conclusions after considering each and every allegation.
Mehta said the governor was justified in ignoring aid and advice of the cabinet which had recommended against grant of sanction. On the 90-page cabinet note, which reproduced the opinion of the advocate-general and the chief secretary, Mehta said this was the longest note ever sent by any state government, ”which was then copy pasted by the chief minister in his reply too.’’
“The irony is, Bengaluru is the IT capital of the country. There is artificial intelligence available. They could have used artificial intelligence at least to paraphrase what is being copied. On the lighter side, they say that artificial intelligence can never match natural stupidity. This is the collective non-application of mind (referring to the state cabinet),’’ he maintained.
Maninder Singh in his submissions said the land acquisition began in 1992. The revenue records show MUDA as the owner in 1998.
”But as far as I know, the moment the land is recorded as government land under revenue records, any transaction after that is rendered void, except entitlement to receive compensation. However, in the said land as owned by MUDA, there was a notification saying it is being developed under a scheme from 2001 to 2004 for which sale deeds are in existence,’’ he added.
Taking it forward, Ranganath Reddy, appearing on behalf of social activist TJ Abraham, said MUDA was the owner of the 3.16 acre of land and the notification to acquire it was issued in 1992 followed by a final notification in 1998. However, 45 days after the final notification, the land was denotified. But none came to reclaim the denotified land.
Reddy explained though MUDA continues to be the owner of the land and had formed plots, it was gifted by one Mallikarjuna Swamy to his sister (Siddaramaiah’s wife). In 2014, the CM’s wife petitioned MUDA for compensation of the land which had become sites by now. “Was the compensation (14 alternative sites) allotted to a non-existent land which was gifted and also converted?’’ he asked.
Substantiating it, Reddy said: ”The land is non-existent. Yet, it is subjected to conversion. Gift deed was made by Mallikarjuna Swamy to the petitioner’s wife. The wife then claims compensation for the land.’’
When justice Nagaprasanna wanted to know whether after receiving the gift, she had become the owner of the land, Reddy asked: “But which land? Where is the land? The possession actually is still with MUDA.’’
Reddy claimed according to his computation the 14 sites allotted are worth ₹55 crore, though the chief minister has said he is ready to return the plots, if MUDA pays him ₹67 crore. “A non-existent land undergoes conversion, sale deed is done, compensation claimed without the petitioner losing anything,’’ he said adding that from 1998 to 2014 when the transactions happened Siddaramaiah was holding the post of either the deputy chief minister or chief minister.
At one juncture justice Nagaprasanna said: “All of you have argued many things. What is the role of the chief minister, nobody has said. It is his sanction. Something should answer on that.’’
Earlier, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi concluded his submissions on behalf of Siddaramaiah, while reserving his rights to make rejoinder submissions once the respondents have concluded their arguments.