Dismissed

Sri P B Chennabasappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/22924/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a brief order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an Executive Engineer challenging the asset valuation in a disproportionate assets case. The court observed that the investigation by the Lokayukta was likely complete and the petitioner failed to explain to the IO, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to raise grounds in trial court if charge-sheeted.

Sri P B Chennabasappa Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20688 WP No. 22924 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22924 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI P B CHENNABASAPPA EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1645/15, 10TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANGERE

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. K B NAVEEN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶12

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUTA, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

CHIEF ENGINEER C & CB (SOUTH), K R CIRCLE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20688 WP No. 22924 of 2017

¶15

BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶17

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH.K. HCGP FOR R1, R3 AND R5; R2 AND R4-SERVED)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 20.08.2008 AT ANNEX-D AND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DULY VALUED BY THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUATOR AS PER THE RULES FOR DETERMINING COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

A case was registered in 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)e read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stating that the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20688 WP No. 22924 of 2017

¶25

petitioner is possessing disproportionate assets to his known source of income.

¶26

The petitioner's grievance is that the value of the properties shown in the source report are overvalued without considering the guidance value issued by the Government.

¶27

The petition is of the year 2017, and in all probabilities, the Lokayuktha after investigation must have submitted final report. The petitioner instead of submitting explanation to the Investigating Officer, has filed this petition.

¶28

Therefore, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to raise all grounds urged in this petition, in the event he has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, before the Trial Court.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

RKA

¶31

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri P B Chennabasappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P B Chennabasappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Akshay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Mahadeva Shetty Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

M R Basavantappa Vs Sri Kalleshi

Sri Lingappa Sherigara Vs the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu

Sri K Harishchandra Rao S/O Sri P Narayan Rao Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Venkataramana Asranna Vs the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu