Guv writes to govt, want to know how it got 'confidential material' from Lokayukta

In the letter to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, the Governor also pointed out that in the 22 August Cabinet decision there is only observation with regard to pendency in according sanction in four cases, and there was no "advice" to him

PTI

https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/newsimages/maannewsimage21092024_004145_Thawarchand Gehlot.jpg
  • Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot

Bengaluru, 20 Sept

 

Another letter written by Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to the Chief Secretary, expressing "perplexity", as to how the government came to know about the "confidential material" relating to Lokayukta's request to him seeking prosecution or investigation sanction against some opposition leaders, surfaced on Friday.

 

In the letter to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, the Governor also pointed out that in the 22 August Cabinet decision there is only observation with regard to pendency in according sanction in four cases, and there was no "advice" to him, as reported in the media.

 

The Karnataka Cabinet has decided to give "aid and advice" to the Governor to act on requests seeking sanction for prosecution against JD(S) leader and Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy and three former BJP ministers including mining baron G Janardhan Reddy, the government had said on 22 August.

 

"I have been made aware through media reports published on 23-08-2024 that the Cabinet had advised the Governor to accord sanction for investigation/prosecution proposal against H D Kumaraswamy, Murugesh Nirani, Janardhan Reddy, and Shashikala Jolle received from Lokayukta police without delay," the Governor said in a letter dated 28 August.

 

"But, on thorough reading of the Cabinet decisions, it is further noted, that there is only observation with regard to pendency in according sanction in the above four cases along with dates of submission by Lokayukta Police to this Secretariat but there is no advice as such," he said.

 

Further noting that he is both "curious and perplexed" to note that how did the State Government and the Cabinet came to know about the request from Lokayukta Police along with dates of submission to the sanctioning authority and other details, the Governor asked, "how did Lokayukta Police being an independent body share confidential material with any person other than the sanctioning authority since I have seen in the media the confidential material floating around?"

 

"I am also curious to see the Cabinet note/materials regarding this subject based on which the Cabinet has observed and decided and which has been conveyed to me officially. Hence, I expect a prompt and early reply along with Cabinet note/supporting documents and the source of documents/ information in this regard," he added.

 

The 22 August Cabinet meeting and its decision that the Governor is referring to, was held within a week after him granting sanction for prosecution and investigation of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case on 16 August. On 19 August, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor's order.

 

The High Court on 12 September completed its hearing on Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of Governor Gehlot's approval for investigation against him in the MUDA site allotment case and reserved its orders.

 

In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by the MUDA.

 

The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA 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. Some Opposition leaders and activists have also claimed that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *