Disposed

G S Siddalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/10096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Revenue Officer challenged the State's communication forwarding an ACB request for Section 17A sanction. The court found no recommendation to accord sanction and, on BBMP's assurance of independent enquiry, disposed of the petition directing independent application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; BBMP to hold independent enquiry and apply its mind independently of Annexure-A before proceeding.

G S Siddalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10096 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G S SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE S SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.227 OPPOSITE TO MARAMMA TEMPLE GUNJUR POST VIA VARTHUR BENGALURU - 87

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.MOHAN KUMAR, K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER/ORDER BEARING NO.NAE 28 BBS 2022 DATED 03/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the communication/ letter bearing No.NAE 28 BBS 2022 dated 03.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1, addressed to respondent No.2 as per Annexure - A, to accord sanction for investigation against the petitioner under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶23

The petitioner is working as a Assistant

¶24

Revenue Officer in respondent No.2 – BBMP. Based on the FIR, search was conducted and various files were seized. Police Inspector, ACB, Ramanagara District addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bengaluru City Division, Bengaluru indicating that there is dereliction of

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶26

duty on the part of the petitioner and therefore, Investigating Agency sought permission from respondent No.1 – State to investigate under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶27

Respondent No.1 – State in response to the request made by the Investigating Agency seems to have sent a impugned communication addressed to respondent No.2 to accord sanction to investigate against the petitioner.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Corporation.

¶29

The petitioner’s apprehension is that

¶30

respondent No.1 – State has exceeded its Authority in recommending respondent No.2 to accord sanction to investigate against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the

¶31

law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶33

MANSUKHLAL VITHALADAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF

¶34

GUJARAT¹ . The petitioner’s apprehension is that respondent No.2 being a sanctioning Authority may get influenced by the impugned communication addressed by respondent No.1 – State. Referring to the above cited judgment, he would point out that validity of sanction depends on the applicability of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. The petitioner’s grievance is that by addressing a letter vide Annexure-A, autonomy of respondent No.2, which can independently apply its mind before according permission, is taken away.

¶35

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that respondent No.2 – BBMP will independently assess materials and then proceed to pass appropriate orders. He asserts, there is no question of getting influenced by the impugned letter issued by respondent No.1 - State. He has also taken this Court to the wordings of the letter addressed to

¶36

1 (1997)7 SCC 622

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶38

respondent No.2 and at the concluding paragraph, there is no positive direction to accord sanction.

¶39

Learned AGA arguing in the same vein would also contend that the letter does not prima-facie indicate any influence on the sanctioning Authority.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel on record,

¶41

I have also given my anxious consideration to the impugned letter. This Court would find that respondent No.1 has not recommended to accord sanction to investigate against the petitioner. However, in thce light of statement made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the sanctioning authority would independently apply its mind before proceeding further against the petitioner, the captioned writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶42

Respondent No.2 – BBMP dehors the

¶43

impugned letter dated 03.05.2023 issued by respondent

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14911 WP No. 10096 of 2024

¶45

No.1 as per Annexure – A shall hold an independent enquiry and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.

¶46

With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶47

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

NBM

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

G S Siddalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G S Siddalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph C Vs the Director (a and Hr)

Sri Chaluvaraju C Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Divya B Vs Beml Limited

Sri. Bhavanishankara. a Vs State of Karnataka

K Gunasagar Vs Indian Bank

C J Karigowda Vs State of Karnataka