2 hours ago
1
The lawsuit is centred astir 14 sites worthy Rs 56 crore that were allotted to CM Siddaramaiah’s woman arsenic compensation by MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) aft astir 3 acres of onshore talented to her had been acquired. (Image: X/@siddaramaiah_official)
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah precocious approached the Karnataka High Court, appealing a erstwhile single-judge determination that upheld the Governor’s authorisation for probe successful the alleged MUDA scam case. The earlier bid was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna connected September 24.
The lawsuit is centred astir 14 sites worthy Rs 56 crore that were allotted to CM Siddaramaiah’s woman arsenic compensation by MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) aft astir 3 acres of onshore talented to her had been acquired. Siddaramaiah had argued earlier the Court that the authorisation granted by the Governor was without exertion of caput arsenic helium had sent amusement origin notices the aforesaid time that helium had received backstage complaints regarding the issue. It was besides argued that Siddaramaiah had taken nary decisions regarding the matter, and further determination were much than 100 different beneficiaries whose onshore was acquired.
With respect to the sanction, the Court stated that portion the Governor usually had to enactment connected the proposal of the Council of Ministers, arsenic per Supreme Court precedent an objection existed portion considering the prosecution of a curate oregon main minister. The Court besides disagreed that the determination had been made with undue haste, since that would lone impact the lawsuit if it were a ‘mala fide’ decision.
Justice Nagaprasanna had raised questions with respect to the worth of the archetypal onshore vis-a-vis the worth of the compensation onshore and stated, “the determined compensation magnitude successful favour of the proprietor of the onshore is astatine (Rs) 3,56,000/- successful the twelvemonth 1997 and successful 2021 this becomes (Rs) 56 crores arsenic compensation to the owner; the proprietor is woman of the petitioner (Siddaramaiah)… The aforesaid facts are each borne retired of records. All these things person happened betwixt 1996 to 2022. This is the play successful which the petitioner was astatine the helm of affairs twice; a lawmaker twice; the Chief Minister once… It is alternatively hard to judge that the beneficiary of the full transaction… is not the household of the petitioner.”
At the clip of filing this report, the entreaty against this bid was yet to person been acceptable earlier a seat of the precocious court.
.png "indianexpress.")
.png "khaleejtimes")
.png "arabnews")
.png "gulfnews"){kind=logo}
English (US) · 
Hindi (IN) ·