High Court Seeks Response
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has sought a response from the Lokayukta police over allegations that they failed to act on a complaint concerning land allotments and concessions involving the Siddhartha Vihar Trust, in a case naming Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and members of his family.
Justice Naga Prasanna directed that notice be served on the Lokayukta police while hearing a petition filed by complainant Vijay Raghav Marathe. The petition challenges the manner in which the Special Court for MPs and MLAs dealt with his complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The complaint names Mallikarjun Kharge, Radhakrishna, Radhabai Kharge, Rahul Kharge, Minister Priyank Kharge and Minister M.B. Patil. It alleges irregularities in land allotted to the Siddhartha Vihar Trust by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), along with concessions granted to the trust.
According to the complaint, the trust received a 50% concession on the basis that it belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. It also questions the allotment of land to the trust at the Aerospace Park in Devanahalli, alleging that the trust had no previous experience in aerospace or research activities.
Another allegation concerns two acres of BDA land in BTM Layout. The complainant has alleged that the land was allotted to the trust with a 50% subsidy and was later returned after questions were raised about the allotment.
{{/usCountry}}Another allegation concerns two acres of BDA land in BTM Layout. The complainant has alleged that the land was allotted to the trust with a 50% subsidy and was later returned after questions were raised about the allotment.
{{/usCountry}}The petition before the High Court centres in part on what the complainant says was the failure of the Lokayukta police to act after he approached the anti corruption agency.
Marathe’s complaint to the Lokayukta sought an investigation into the alleged irregularities. According to his petition, however, no action followed.
Advocate Lakshmi Iyeangar, appearing for Marathe, argued that the Special Court should have directed the Lokayukta police to investigate the allegations. Instead, the Special Court declined to order such an investigation, citing deficiencies in the affidavit filed with the complaint, and proceeded to consider the matter directly under Section 223 of the BNSS.
Marathe challenged that procedure before the High Court, arguing that the Special Court had adopted the wrong course in dealing with his complaint.
After considering the arguments, Justice Naga Prasanna ordered notice to the Lokayukta police. The notice gives the authorities an opportunity to respond to the proceedings and to the allegations concerning their handling of the complaint.
The High Court has not made any finding that the land allotments or concessions were illegal, nor has it found wrongdoing by any of the people named in the complaint. The allegations remain claims by the complainant and are yet to be examined through the legal process.