IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

INDEX VOLUME-1
Sl. No. Particulars Page
1. Synopsis And Brief Facts
2. Memorandum of Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India
3. Verifying Affidavit
4. Annexure A- The impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble Governor granting sanction dated
16.08.2024
5. Annexure B- The application for sanction filed by
Respondent No. 3 dated 26.07.2024 a/w
Annexures-A to V
6. Annexure C- The show cause notice dated
26.07.2024
7. Annexure D- The copy of the cabinet note dated
31.07.2024 along with annexures
 8. Annexure E- The decision of the Council of
Ministers dated 01.08.2024, along with the
attached Annexures 1-29
9. Annexure F- The copy of the reply dated
03.08.2024 sent by the Petitioner
10. Annexure G- The copy of the communication
dated 05.07.2024
11. Annexure H- The copy of the communication
dated 15.07.2024
12. Annexure J- The copy of the application against
Shashikala Jolle dated 09.12.2021
13. Annexure K - The copy of the application against
H D Kumaraswamy dated 21.11.2023
14. Annexure L- The copy of the application against
Murgesh Nirani dated 26.02.2024
15. Annexure M- The copy of the application against
Janardhan Reddy dated 13.05.2024
16. Annexure N- The copy of the Standard operating
procedure dated 03.09.2021
17. Vakalat
18. IA for Dispensation a/w Affidavit

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

SYNOPSIS

Sl. Date Particulars

No
1. 01.07.2024 The Respondent State Government, in
the background of reports/news
published under different headlines in
various State level newspapers and in
various visual media about the alleged
scam in the Mysore Urban Development
Authority, constituted a committee under
the chairmanship of Shri.
Venkatachalapathy. IAS vide G.O: NAE
211 MYAPRA 2024

2. 05.07.2024 The Hon’ble Governor issued

communications to the Chief Secretary of
Karnataka, seeking a report on allegations
 concerning the Mysore Urban
Development Authority (MUDA).

3. 14.07.2024. The Respondent Government,

considering the facts reported in the
newspapers/media regarding the
allegations about the allotment of sites by
the Mysore Urban Development
Authority, considered appropriate to
conduct a high-level inquiry under the
'Commission of Inquiry Act 1952', sub-
rule (1) of Rule 3 by the Government. A
Single Member Inquiry Commission
headed by Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Desai, Retired
Judge of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
was constituted through G.O: HD 87 PCE
2024

4. 15.07.2024 The Hon’ble Governor issued a second

communication to the Chief Secretary of
Karnataka, seeking a report on allegations
concerning the Mysore Urban
Development Authority (MUDA).
5. 18.07.2024 The 2nd Respondent filed a complaint to
Lokayukta Police Mysuru
6. 23.07.2024. Terms of Reference has been issued for
the Inquiry Commission by the
Government through G.O: HD 87 PCE
2024 dated 23.07.2024 for submission of
the enquiry report within 6 months.
7. 25.07.2024 Respondent No 2 filed additional
 statement to the Lokayukta Police
8. 26.07.2024 Respondent No 2 filed an application for
grant of sanction to the Hon’ble Governor
9. 26.07.2024 Hon’ble Governor issues show cause
notice to the Petitioner

10. 26.07.2024 Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka, furnished a detailed reply to
the Letters of the Hon’ble Governor dated
05.07.2024 and 15.07.2024

11. 31.07.2024 The matter was referred by the Urban

Development Department to the Advocate
General for his opinion. The opinion was
furnished, and a cabinet note was
prepared for the Council of Ministers.

12. 01.08.2024 The Council of Ministers passed a

resolution and resolved to advise the
Governor to withdraw the notice issued to
the Petitioner and reject the application
for sanction filed by Respondent No 3

13. 03.08.2024 The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply

to the Hon’ble Governor

14. 16.08.2024 The Hon’ble Governor proceeded to grant

sanction for prosecution against the
Petitioner and issued the impugned order

15. 17.08.2024 Impugned order communicated to the

 Chief Secretary of the Chief Minister

BRIEF FACTS
The Petitioner, the current Chief Minister of Karnataka, is herein challenging
the order issued by the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka on 16.08.2024,
thereby granting prior approval and sanction under Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and 218 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This order was based on an application made by
Respondent No. 3, who initially lodged a complaint on 18.07.2024 with the
Lokayukta Police, Mysore, alleging irregularities in land allotment by the
Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) concerning land in Sy. No.
464 of Kesare Village, Mysore. Subsequently, on 26.07.2024, Mr. Abraham
filed the abovementioned application before the Hon’ble Governor seeking
sanction for prosecution.

On the same day, the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka issued a show-cause

notice to the Petitioner, demanding a response to the allegations. In
addition, The Hon’ble Governor had also addressed two letters dated
05.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 to the Chief Secretary of the Government of
Karnataka, who then responded to the said letters and submitted a detailed
reply on 26.07.2024, refuting the politically motivated allegations.
Additionally, the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers, who,
on 01.08.2024, resolved to advise the Governor to withdraw the notice and
reject the application for sanction vide a detailed Cabinet Note. The
Petitioner also, in his personal capacity, submitted a detailed and
comprehensive reply to the Hon’ble Governor’s Show cause notice on
03.08.2024.

Despite all the factual matters being brought to notice of the Hon’ble
Governor, he has proceeded to grant sanction on 16.08.2024, which was
communicated to the Chief Secretary on 17.08.2024. The Petitioner
submits that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind,
in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles,
including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under
Article 163 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Governor’s decision is
legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous
considerations, and thus the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition
seeking to quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 amongst other
reliefs.

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024

BETWEEN:

Shri Siddaramaiah
Aged about 75 years,
Son of Shri Siddarame Gowda,
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka,
R/at No. 6, Cauvery Crescent,
Bengaluru – 560001. ….Petitioner

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,

represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru – 560 001

2. The Special Secretary

To his Excellency,
The Governor of Karnataka,
Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru – 560001

3. Mr. Abraham T J,
Aged about not known,
Son of not known,
R/at Ashirvad 2326
2nd A Cross 16 B Main Hal
 2nd Stage Indiranagar,
Bengaluru 560008

4. Sri Snehamayi Krishna

Aged about 54 years,
Son of Late Siddappa
R/at No 335 Bandipalya
Ganapathy Ashrama Post
Mysuru 570 025

5. Pradeepkumar S P
Aged about 42 years
Son of S N Puttaswamy Gowda
R/a 30, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross
Nagarbhavi Bengaluru 560072 ... Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble

Governor of Karnataka, thereby granting prior approval or sanction for
prosecution against the Petitioner pursuant to an application filed by
Respondents No. 2 to 4, seeks to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to
challenge the said order of prior approval or sanction (hereinafter
referred to as the "impugned order") and seeks to have the same
quashed and set aside, by issuance of a writ of certiorari. The impugned
order, passed on 17.08.2024, is in gross violation of the law, principles
of natural justice, unconstitutional, ultravires section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and section 218 of BNSS, established
judicial precedents, and therefore necessitates judicial intervention by
 this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The impugned order
grants sanction against the Chief Minister i.e. the Petitioner under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for offences ‘as mentioned in
the impugned order without due consideration of the facts and
circumstances, totally contrary to the established legal principles,
suffers from total non-application of mind and without application of
mind, in the absence of the allegations disclosing the commission of any
offence and without jurisdiction. The impugned has been passed on
16.08.2024 and the Special Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor of
Karnataka addressed a letter bearing No GS 40 ADM 2024 dated
17.08.2024 to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka
intimating her of the decision of the Governor and has enclosed a copy
of the impugned order dated 16.08.2024. The impugned order passed
by the Hon’ble Governor granting sanction dated 16.08.2024 is herein
produced as ANNEXURE A. The communication sent by the Special
Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka to the Chief Secretary
bearing No GS 40 ADM 2024 dated 17.08.2024.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued
by the Hon’ble Governor, which, is respectfully submitted, has been
passed without due application of mind, in disregard of statutory
mandates, and motivated by extraneous and irrelevant considerations,
besides being illegal, ultra vires the mandate of section 17A Pc Act and
section 218 BNSS. The Petitioner submits that the said order, which
sanctions the prosecution of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka i.e
the Petitioner, is legally unsustainable and suffers from severe
procedural infirmities that render it null and void. The Petitioner seeks
the intervention of this Hon’ble Court to quash and set aside the
impugned order, to prevent any unjust, illegal, or precipitative actions
that may result from it, thereby ensuring the protection of the rule of
law and the constitutional framework of governance. The Hon’ble
 Governor has also referenced petitions filed by Respondents 3 and 4 of
which the Petitioner has been left entirely in the dark and has no
information regarding the averments of those petitions, nor has he been
issued with any notice.

3. The Petitioner, is a distinguished statesman with a long and illustrious

career in public service, spanning over four decades. He is widely
respected across the political spectrum and in society at large for his
integrity, commitment to social justice, and unwavering dedication to
the welfare of the people of Karnataka. Shri Siddaramaiah has held
numerous significant positions throughout his career, including serving
as Deputy Chief Minister, Finance Minister, and Leader of the Opposition
in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly; he is currently serving as the
Chief Minister of Karnataka and is the Member of the Legislative
Assembly having duly and directly elected by the people of Varuna
Assembly Constituency. The Petitioner has previously served a full term
as Chief Minister of Karnataka from 2013 to 2018. The Petitioner's
tenure as the Chief Minister is marked by numerous significant
achievements that have positively impacted the lives of countless
individuals. Pioneering policies and projects have been initiated with a
steadfast focus on enhancing the overall quality of life for the citizenry.
The administration, under The Petitioner's leadership, has consistently
championed the cause of the marginalized, impoverished, and
disadvantaged sections of society. His contributions to the State of
Karnataka have been substantial, particularly in the fields of social
welfare, education, healthcare, and rural development. His leadership
as Chief Minister has been characterized by a focus on transparency,
accountability, and inclusive governance, aimed at uplifting marginalized
communities and ensuring equitable development across the State.
4. The petitioner’s tenure as Chief Minister has seen the implementation of
several landmark initiatives, such as the Anna Bhagya scheme, which
provides free rice to low-income families, and the Ksheera Bhagya
scheme, which offers free milk to school children, the ‘Five Guarantee
Schemes’ among others. These initiatives have earned him widespread
acclaim for his vision and commitment to the upliftment of the
underprivileged. His administration has also been recognized for its
efforts in improving infrastructure, fostering economic growth, and
maintaining social harmony within the State. The Petitioner's dedication
to the principles of social justice, secularism, and democracy has made
him a trusted and beloved leader among the people of Karnataka.

5. The impugned order, which grants sanction for the prosecution of the
Petitioner, is not only a direct attack on his person but also an affront to
the office of the Chief Minister, undermining the democratic process and
the will of the people of Karnataka. The Petitioner submits that the order
in question has been issued in haste and without proper consideration
of the material facts, the law, and the constitutional mandates governing
such actions. It is pertinent to note that the said order is based on an
application filed by Respondent No. 3, whose conduct and motives have
been called into question on numerous occasions, including by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner contends that the
impugned order of sanction is tainted with malafides and is part of a
concerted effort to destabilize the duly elected government of Karnataka
for political reasons.

6. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the issuance of the impugned

order by the Hon’ble Governor is a clear overreach of his powers under
the Constitution, as it not only contravenes the advice rendered by the
Council of Ministers, which is binding on the Governor under Article 163
of the Constitution of India, but also fails to provide any reason or
 material whatsoever to differ from the advice of the council of ministers.
The Petitioner further submits that the impugned order is in violation of
the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases
such as Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab & Anr (1974) 2 SCC
831 And M.P Special Police Establishment v State of MP & Ors
(2004) 8 SCC 788, which mandates that the Governor must act in
accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters
where he is required to exercise his discretion independently under the
Constitution. In the present case, the advice of the Council of Ministers,
which was rendered after a thorough examination of the facts and the
law, has been unjustifiably ignored by the Hon’ble Governor, thereby
rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. It is submitted that
in the case of Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1, it
is reiterated that Governor is bound to exercise his discretion based on
the aid and advice of the council of ministers tendered to him under
Article 163 unless expressly authorized by or under a Constitutional
provision.

7. It is submitted that even if the Governor were to choose to reject the

advice of the council of ministers, he ought to provide cogent reasons
for having rejected the advice or differed from it as mandated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P Special Police Establishment v State
of MP & Ors (2004) 8 SCC 788. The Governor has not by any means
provided any reasons that the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
is (i) manifest with bias; (ii) bias is apparent; (iii) decision of the Council
of Ministers is shown to be irrational and on non-consideration of
relevant factors, (iv) Council of Ministers disables or disentitles itself, (v)
as a matter of propriety he has to act in his own discretion. The Hon’ble
Governor cannot exercise his discretion beyond the powers enumerated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, and in the present
case the impugned order fails to spell out any cogent reasons which
 necessitates the exercise of the Governors discretionary powers to reject
the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

8. The fact that the Governor has considered the application for sanction
for offences under the provisions of BNSS, 2023, which came into force
on 01.07.2024, for alleged offences said to have been committed over
a period of the last 20 years when the Indian penal code was in force
goes to show the order suffers from total no application of mind This
apart, the impugned order, would be in the teeth of Article 20 of
Constitution of India, which provides protections, for an act which is not
an offence at the time of its commission This would indicate the prov of
BNSS, would not apply, for allegations of commission of offences prior
to 01.07.2024

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

9. That On 18.07.2024, Respondent No. 3, Mr. T.J. Abraham lodged a

complaint with the Lokayukta Police in Mysore, seeking the registration
of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 59, 61, 62, 201,
227, 228, 229, 239, 314, 316(5), 318(1), 318(2), 318(3), 319, 322,
324, 324(1), 324(2), 324(3), 335, 336, 338 and Section 340 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against several public servants,
including the Petitioner who is the Hon’ble Chief Minister, as well as
certain private individuals. The complaint centered around alleged
irregularities in the land allotment process by the Mysore Urban
Development Authority (MUDA), specifically concerning land in Sy. No.
464 of Kesare Village, Mysore. That on 25.07.2024, Respondent No 3,
submitted further information to supplement his initial complaint.

10. Subsequently, on 26.07.2024, he filed an application directly before,

the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, seeking sanction for prosecution
 under Sections 17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988,(Hereinafter referred to as PC Act) and Section 218 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Hereinafter referred to as
BNSS) to proceed against the Petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 and Sections 59, 61, 62, 201, 227, 228, 229, 239, 314, 316(5),
318(1), 318(2), 318(3), 319, 322, 324, 324(1), 324(2), 324(3), 335,
336, 338 and Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The
Respondent No 3 also enclosed a list of annexures in his application to
the Hon’ble Governor. The application for sanction filed by Respondent
No. 3 dated 26.07.2024, along with the annexures A TO V, is herein
produced as ANNEXURE – B.

11. On the very same day, 26.07.2024, the Hon’ble Governor, without
application of mind and without appreciating the legal & constitutional
mandate issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner, demanding a
response to the allegations leveled by the respondent no. 3 and asking
the Petitioner to show cause as to why sanction for prosecution should
not be granted. The issuance of this notice was marked by an unusual
urgency, coming almost immediately after the receipt of Respondent No
3’s application, without any preliminary consideration of the same. The
show cause notice dated 26.07.2024 is herein produced as ANNEXURE
– C.

12. It is submitted that the petitioner on receipt of the notice, keeping in

mind the mandate of Article 163 of the constitution and underlying
constitutional principles of a parliamentary form of Democracy, the
matter was placed before the council of ministers to take a decision. The
Petitioner had recused himself from the meeting and in terms of rule 28
of the Transaction of Business rules, nominated Sri. D.K. Shivakumar,
Deputy Chief Minister, to chair the meeting. The matter was referred by
 the Urban Development Department, on 31.07.2024 to the Learned
Advocate General, for his opinion on the matter. The learned Advocate
General furnished his detailed opinion and the matter was placed before
the council of ministers along with a cabinet note and legal opinion. The
copy of the cabinet note dated 31.07.2024 along with annexures is
herein produced as ANNEXURE – D.

13. The Council of Ministers met on 01.08.2024, and after detailed

discussion for the reasons mentioned therein and after due consideration
of facts and law resolved to strongly advice the Hon’ble Governor as
hereunder; “to withdraw the notice dated 26.07.2024, issued by the
Hon’ble Governor to the Hon’ble Chief Minister based on the petition and
addendum dated 26.07.2024, filed by one T.J. Abraham, and to proceed
forthwith to reject the said application by denying prior approval and
sanction”. The decision of the Council of Ministers dated 01.08.2024,
along with the attached Annexures 1-29 is herein produced as
ANNEXURE – E. The decision of the council of ministers was
communicated to the Governor on the same day i.e. 01.08.2024.

14. That thereafter, the Urban Development Department submitted the

file to the petitioner for his information along with the decision of the
cabinet. The petitioner on going through the decision of the council of
ministers, and on a thorough application of mind and after examining
the facts as well as the legal prepositions submitted his reply dated
03.08.2024. The reply also meticulously refuted the allegations,
emphasizing that they were politically motivated, lacked any substantive
evidence, and were intended solely to tarnish the Petitioner’s reputation.
The. It is submitted that the petitioner, filed a detailed reply in his
personal capacity vide letter no. UDD/ 248/MUD/2024 (E) dated
03.08.2024, which entails a detailed narration of the true facts and
circumstances pertaining to the allegations revolving around the MUDA.
The copy of the reply dated 03.08.2024 is herein produced as
 ANNEXURE – F. The reply of the Petitioner is supported by a
compilation of documents, that has already been produced along with
the cabinet decision, therefore not being produced again for the sake of
brevity.

15. Despite the detailed response from the Petitioner and the advice
rendered by the Council of Ministers, the Hon’ble Governor, proceeded
to grant the sanction for prosecution against the Petitioner on
16.08.2024, disregarding the legal and factual deficiencies outlined in
the reply. The Petitioner contends that this precipitative action by the
Governor is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice,
established legal norms, and the constitutional mandate, suffers from
total non-application of mind and ultra vires the provisions of section
17A, 19 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 BNSS.

16. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the reciept of application

for sanction and issuance of the show cause notice, the governor based
on news reports and thereafter on the basis of a representation made
by one Kurburu Shantha Kumar, on behalf of farmer community, issued
the Chief Secretary two communications dated 05.07.2024 and 15-07-
2024, calling for a report on the allegation s pertaining to the MUDA with
respect to allotment of sites as compensation. The copy of the
communication dated 05.07.2024 and 15.07.2024, is herein produced
as Annexure G & H Respectively. The Chief Secretary in response to
the said communication of the Governor, examined the entire records
and furnished his reply on 26.07.2024. The reply was furnished in person
and a detailed oral explanation was also provided by the Chief Secretary.
The copy of the reply dated 26.07.2024. The said reply dated
26.07.2024 has been produced along with the Cabinet Note at Annexure
D.
17. The Governor has conveniently chosen to ignore the reply of the chief
secretary and on the very same day proceeded to issue the show cause
notice. Thereafter the impugned order of sanction came to be passed.
The Petitioner now seeks to challenge this impugned order of sanction
issued the Hon’ble Governor, as it was passed without proper application
of mind, in undue haste, and in a manner that is contrary to the law.
The Petitioner asserts that the impugned order has been issued without
adequate consideration of the relevant material, the reply submitted by
the Petitioner, the independent inquiry committee established solely for
this purpose, and proceeded solely on political considerations. The above
writ petition is therefore preferred to quash and set aside the impugned
order, which is unconstitutional, arbitrary, suffers from total non-
application of mind, perse perverse, actuated by legal and factual
malafides and an abuse of the constitutional office of the Governor.

18. It is necessary to point out that several applications for sanction

made by investigating agencies are long pending before the Governor.
Some of these applications are made after investigation and along with
the chargesheet, seeking sanction u/s 19 PC Act and 197 Cr.P.C, while
some are made seeking prior approval under section 17A of the PC Act.
The Lokayukta police on receipt of complaints has made a request
seeking prior approval against the former Minister Smt. Shashikala Jolle,
another request under 17A against Former Minister Murgesh Nirani and
application for previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC act along
with the chargesheet by the SIT for Mining matters, Lokayuktha police,
against former Chief Minister H.D. Kumarswamy and former Minister
Janardhan Reddy. The copy of the application against Shashikala Jolle
dated 09.12.2021 is herein produced as Annexure – J. The copy of the
application against H D Kumaraswamy dated 21.11.2023 is herein
produced as Annexure – K. The copy of the application against Murgesh
Nirani dated 26.02.2024 is herein produced as Annexure – L. The copy
 of the application against Janardhan Reddy dated 13.05.2024 is herein
produced as Annexure – M.

19. It is submitted that the entire issue stems out of allegations of

irregularities in relation to the Mysore Urban Development Authority with
respect to certain land which belonged to the wife of the Petitioner and
the compensatory mechanism of allotting sites adopted by MUDA. The
fact remains that the Governor has chosen not to examine the true
factual matrix by looking through the records before granting sanction,
it is pertinent and necessary for him to look into the facts surrounding
the issue of the lands in Survey No. 464 of Kesare Village, Mysore, and
the series of events that have transpired over several decades
concerning its ownership, acquisition, denotification, and subsequent
legal and administrative actions. The entire factual matrix is detailed out
both in the decision of the cabinet as well as the reply of the Petitioner,
which fact if looked into would on the face of it would disclose, that the
order of sanction is based purely on the surmises and conjectures, apart
from being based on falsehood and suppression of truth.

20. That despite the admitted facts showing no ingredient of the

commission of any offence, Respondent No. 3, submitted an application
to the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, alleging corruption and
malfeasance in the allotment of the plots to Smt. Parvathi, without any
basis and only with political intentions. The allegations made by the
Respondents were based on a misrepresentation of facts and a
deliberate attempt to malign the reputation of the Chief Minister. Despite
the lack of any prima facie evidence, the Governor has taken action in
haste of firstly issuing a show-cause notice to the Chief Minister and
thereafter granting prior approval and sanction for prosecution.

21. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Governor, has failed to take note of
the Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 03.09.2021, with regard
 to processing of cases under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The said SOP, provides for the mechanism to be adopted and the
officers authorized to seek 17A approval. In terms of this SOP as well as
the circular issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the question
of a private person seeking prior approval does not arise. On this count
also, the impugned order stands vitiated. A Copy of the Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 03.09.2021 is herein produced as
ANNEXURE – N.

22. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 & 4 have chosen to file a
private complaint before the Special Court seeking for referring the
matter for investigation, or to take cognizance of the offences and
proceed further. The said complaints came to be filed before the court
after complaints were filed before the Lokayukta police and application
for prior approval and sanction was made before the Governor of
Karnataka. The said complaints have been argued and one complaint is
posted for order on 20.08.2024, while the other complaint of
Respondent No. 3 is posted on 21.08.2024 for further arguments. In
view of these complaints, the issue replating to the grant of prior
approval and sanction which is impugned in this writ petition would
become imperative for consideration by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of
its Writ Jurisdiction.

23. That the Hon’ble Governor failed to appreciate that the State
Government, in right earnest has appointed a Commission of Enquiry
headed by retired Justice P N Desai, with a comprehensive terms of
reference, to look into issues pertaining to MUDA from the year 2006 –
24, this has resulted in failure of justice. On this ground also, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed.

24. Despite the comprehensive response and the clear lack of merit in
the allegations, the Governor, without due application of mind and in
 undue haste, passed an order granting sanction for prosecution against
the Chief Minister. The impugned order, issued in response to
respondents’ application, has raised serious concerns about the
propriety and legality of the Governor’s actions, leading to the filing of
the present writ petition.

25. The Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned action of the Governor in

issuing the Order dated 16.08.2024, which is passed in total violation of
the principles of natural justice, besides being wholly illegal, without
jurisdiction, ultra vires section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act and
provisions section 218 BNSS, suffering from total non application of
mind and contrary to the settled position of law, the petitioner having
no other alternative and efficacious remedy except approaching this
Hon’ble court under article 226 & 227 of the constitution of India on the
following amongst other grounds that may be raised at the appropriate
stage.

26. The petitioner has not preferred any other petition of like nature
either before this Hon’ble Court or any other court, or initiated any other
proceedings on the same cause of action.

GROUNDS

Constitutional Mandate under Article 163

a. The impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka,

according sanction for prosecution against the Petitioner, the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Karnataka, represents a clear violation of the
constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 163 of the
Constitution of India. Article 163(1) explicitly states that there shall
be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid
and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in
cases where the Governor is required to act in his discretion. In terms
 of the constitutional mandate and the underlying constitutional
principles as enunciated, more so, under Article 163 of the
Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Governor must act purely on the
aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters where
the Constitution provides for him to act in his discretion. The law with
regard to the functions of the Governor, with regard to the
consideration of grant of sanction as against a minister or chief
minister under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
the IPC (Now BNS 2023) is no more res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Samsher Singh v.
State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, clarified that the Governor’s
discretion is extremely limited and applies only in specific and
exceptional circumstances, such as those outlined in Article 371, or
during times of constitutional crises, like invoking President's Rule
under Article 356.

b. In the present case, the subject matter—granting sanction for

prosecution—does not fall within any of these exceptional
circumstances. The Governor’s role in this context is not one where
he can exercise independent discretion. Instead, he is
constitutionally obligated to act on the aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers, who are collectively responsible to the Legislative
Assembly. By proceeding to grant sanction for prosecution without
firstly seeking the advice of the Council of Ministers and thereafter
in not considering the advice rendered by the council of ministers on
01.08.2024, the Governor has acted outside the bounds of his
constitutional authority, rendering the impugned order ultra vires
and unconstitutional.

c. The principle that the Governor must act on the aid and advice
of the Council of Ministers has been repeatedly affirmed by the
Supreme Court in cases like M.P Special Police Establishment v
 State of MP &Ors (2004) 8 SCC 788 and State of Gujarat v.
R.A. Mehta, (2013) 3 SCC 1. The underlying rationale is to
maintain the democratic structure of the State, where the real
executive power lies with the elected representatives of the people,
and not with a nominated Governor. In this case, the Governor’s
action undermines the constitutional scheme and the foundational
principle of responsible government, which is a cornerstone of our
democracy.

d. The impugned order is arbitrary and suffers from total non-

application of mind in as much as the governor has not provided any
reasons whatsoever for not following or differing with the view of the
cabinet. The Supreme Court in the case of MP Police Establishment,
has clearly stipulated the grounds on which the Governor can reject
or differ from the view of the cabinet in grant of sanction to Ministers
or Chief Minister. The Governor has failed to consider this critical
legal position and therefore committed grave error in passing the
impugned order.

e. The impugned order suffers from a grave and fatal flaw of non-
application of mind. The Governor has failed to consider the detailed
and comprehensive response submitted by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka, dated 26.07.2024 and the Cabinet
Decision taken on 01.08.2024, which highlighted the numerous
factual and legal infirmities in the application for sanction filed by
Respondent No. 3. This failure to consider relevant material is not a
mere procedural lapse but goes to the very root of the decision-
making process, rendering the order void ab initio.

f. The reading of the show cause notice dated 26.07.2024, would show
that the governor has prejudged the entire issue and the impugned
order is a mere formality. The impugned order therefore suffers from
 manifest arbitrariness and is violative of article 14 of the
Constitution.

Legal Malafides

g. It is clear from the manner in which the Hon’ble Governor has acted
and the time frames as revealed from the records, that all known
constitutional requirements and procedures have been totally
bypassed and he has acted in a tearing hurry proceeded further in
the application seeking sanction and granting sanction without even
examining the veracity, authenticity and genuinity of the allegations
or for that matter, without even summoning the relevant records
from the concerned department. That the Hon’ble Governor has
failed to examine the records, consider whether the allegations
based on the examination of the records and facts of the case reveal
the commission of any of the penal offenses mentioned in the said
application and proceed further in the matter. That this alone would
vitiate the entire proceedings including the issuance of the order of
Sanction.

h. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas

Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622, emphasized that
the grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious
exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act that must be undertaken
with utmost care and diligence. The validity of the sanction depends
upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the
consideration of all relevant facts, materials, and evidence. The
sanctioning authority is required to apply its own independent mind
to determine whether the facts justify the grant of sanction for
prosecution. The order must ex facie disclose that the authority has
considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In the
instant case, the Governor issued the impugned order on
 16.08.2024, without a thorough examination of the voluminous
materials, including the rebuttal provided by the Petitioner. This
haste indicates a lack of independent judgment and a predetermined
mindset, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court. The speed with which the order was passed, in the
absence of any emergent or compelling circumstances, suggests that
the Governor acted mechanically, without exercising the due
diligence required by law.

i. The governor has passed impugned order which spells out that
sanction is accorded based on complaints with relation to petitions
filed by three individuals, Sri T J Abraham (Respondent No 3), Sri
Snehamayi Krishna (Respondent No 4) and Sri Pradeep Kumar S P
(Respondent No 5). However, the Governor has failed to even notify
and inform the Petitioner about the petitions filed by Respondent 4
and 5 and petitioner has been completely left in the dark with respect
to these petitions filed and its averments.

j. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned order of

sanction passed by the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka is tainted with
legal malafides and is a blatant violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is pertinent to note that while the Governor referenced
three separate applications seeking sanction for prosecution against
the Petitioner, he only issued a show cause notice in response to the
application filed by Respondent No. 3, Mr. T.J. Abraham. The other
two applications, submitted by Snehamayi Krishna and Pradeep
Kumar SP, were neither communicated to the Petitioner nor was any
opportunity provided to respond to the allegations contained therein.
This selective issuance of a show cause notice demonstrates a clear
procedural irregularity and an unjust approach in dealing with the
matter. The failure to issue show cause notices and provide an
opportunity for the Petitioner to reply to the applications filed by
 Snehamayi Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP constitutes a serious
breach of the principles of natural justice. It is a fundamental tenet
of law that any person against whom adverse action is proposed
must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. By choosing
to proceed only with the application filed by Respondent No. 3, while
suppressing the other two, the Governor has acted in a manner that
is arbitrary and discriminatory, thereby rendering the impugned
order flawed and unjust. This selective approach not only
undermines the legal process but also raises questions about the
impartiality and objectivity of the Governor’s decision, further
reinforcing the contention that the impugned order is vitiated by
legal malafides.

k. Moreover, the Governor’s failure to consider the material on record,

including the legal and factual defenses raised by the Petitioner,
amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The
impugned order has been passed without considering relevant
materials and after excluding relevant considerations is hence liable
to be quashed as it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and non-
application of mind.

l. The impugned order is further vitiated by legal malafides, as it

appears to be influenced by extraneous considerations rather than
an objective assessment of the facts and the law. The circumstances
under which the sanction was granted, particularly the undue haste
with which the Governor acted on the application filed by respondent
no 3, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of bias and mala fides.
It is pertinent to note that several other applications for sanction,
involving public servants and politicians, have been pending before
the Governor for months, if not years. Yet, the present application
 was acted upon with unprecedented speed, raising serious questions
about the impartiality and propriety of the Governor's decision.

m. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

(1994) 3 SCC 1, underscored the principle that any discretionary
action by a constitutional authority must be free from arbitrariness
and must not be influenced by political considerations or other
extraneous factors. The Governor’s selective urgency in granting the
sanction, while ignoring the merits of other pending applications,
reveals a pattern of selective bias, which is a classic example of legal
malafides.

n. Furthermore, the fact that the Governor chose to act on the

application of a known habitual litigant and blackmailer, who has a
history of filing frivolous and vexatious petitions, further underscores
the mala fide nature of the impugned order. The Governor's selective
urgency in entertaining the application of Respondent no. 3, while
several other applications for sanction, including those involving
high-profile individuals, have been pending before him for extended
periods, reflects a clear bias and extraneous influence. This selective
treatment and the apparent political motivations behind the
Governor's actions are indicative of legal mala fides, rendering the
impugned order invalid and unsustainable in law.

o. Moreover, the Petitioner’s comprehensive response, submitted

through the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, and the
decision of the Council of Ministers was disregarded without any
reasoned consideration. This selective treatment of the Petitioner’s
case, coupled with the Governor’s failure to examine the merits of
the response, points to a predetermined and biased approach. The
Supreme Court in M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 788, has reiterated that the
 Governor’s discretionary powers must be exercised within the
bounds of the Constitution and established legal principles. Any
deviation from these principles amounts to legal malafides and
renders the action void.

p. Furthermore, the Governor's action in issuing the show cause notice

and the subsequent sanction order, despite being apprised of the
legal infirmities and factual inaccuracies in the application of
respondent no. 3, suggests a deliberate attempt to undermine the
Petitioner and destabilize the duly elected government of Karnataka.
Such actions, driven by extraneous considerations, are contrary to
the rule of law and must be struck down to preserve the sanctity of
the constitutional process.

q. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that an independent commission,

headed by retired Karnataka High Court Judge P.N. Desai has been
constituted to thoroughly investigate these very same allegations.
The sequence of actions suggests a hasty and ill-considered attempt
to initiate baseless criminal proceedings, thereby contributing to a
needless multiplicity of legal actions which is untenable in law.

r. A mere perusal of the impugned order of sanction makes it clear that

the hon’ble Governor has exercised powers beyond stipulated
constitutional principles. The hon’ble governor has observed as
follows
“ I am prima facie satisfied that the allegations and the
supporting materials disclose the commission of offences”
This makes it glaringly clear that the Governor has prejudged the
entire issue and the impugned order was a mere formality.

s. That the Respondent No. 3 has filed several complaints and

applications for prior approval and sanction as against several public
 servants over the past 25 years. In the instant case however, he has
chosen, to seek prior approval and sanction only as against the
Petitioner. This criminal proceedings cannot be set into motion by
pick and choose method to suit any ones convenience. This fact
clearly establishes, that the private respondents have chosen to
make application only as against the Chief Minister for political
sensationalism and their actions lack bonafides. Legal and factual
malafides are writ large in the mechanism adopted by the private
respondents as well as the impugned order passed by the Governor.

Legal Preposition Regarding Sanction Under Section 17A Of The

Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 And Section 218 Of Bnss
2023(197 Code Of Criminal Procedure):

t. The impugned order granting sanction for prosecution is in flagrant

violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 17A was introduced by the Amendment Act of 2018 to
provide a safeguard for public servants against undue harassment
by ensuring that no inquiry, inquiry, or investigation can be
conducted against them concerning any recommendation made or
decision taken by such public servant in the discharge of official
functions or duties without the prior approval of the appropriate
government.

u. Section 17A specifically mandates that: “No police officer shall

conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence
alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act,
where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made
or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official
functions or duties, without the previous approval…”
v. A reading of Section 17A very clearly discloses that the said provision
of law mandates that the concerned police officer, to conduct Enquiry
or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations
made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official
functions or duties will have to seek prior approval of the State
Government in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the
time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in
connection with the affairs of a State. And in case of any other
person, from the competent authority to remove him from office.
Therefore, no enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence
alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act
can be made by a Police officer without previous approval of
appropriate authority and it is therefore clear that the bar on Section
17A on a public servant can be lifted by grant of previous approval
by an appropriate authority only on a request made by a police
officer. Therefore, in the absence of any request by a Police officer
for previous approval from the appropriate authority, as the case
may be to inquire, enquire or investigate against a public servant,
the question of consideration of grant of previous approval does not
arise. Therefore, in the present instance the request of grant of
previous approval being from a private person is not maintainable
and the Governor ought not to have granted sanction based entirely
on an application made by a private person with vested interests.

w. Secondly the requirement of pre-approval, under Section 17A is with

regard to an enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable
to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in
discharge of official functions or duties. Admittedly and on the face
of records no recommendation is made or decision taken by the
Petitioner in discharge of official functions or duties. Accordingly on
this count also the Governor ought to have held that the application
for previous approval under Section 17A is not maintainable and
 therefore should have rejected the prayer made in the application
and not granted sanction.

x. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cases like Shreeroopa v. State of

Karnataka (WP 8905/2022 Kar HC), has emphasized the importance
of strict adherence to Section 17A. The Court held that the provision
acts as a filter to protect public servants from vexatious prosecution
and that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to whether
prior approval has been sought and obtained before any sanction for
prosecution can be granted. The Hon’ble Governor's failure to
consider the lack of compliance with the mandate of prior approval
under Section 17A before granting the sanction is not a mere
oversight but a significant legal infirmity that strikes at the root of
the impugned order. This failure to comply with statutory
requirements reflects a clear dereliction of duty and further
underscores the arbitrary and legally untenable nature of the
impugned order.

y. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from procedural impropriety

and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

z. The impugned order also suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity

arising from non-compliance with Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (formerly Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973). A plain reading of Section 218 of the
BNSS 2023 (Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973)
makes it amply clear that the said provision also comes into play only
at the stage of “prosecution” and taking cognisance of offences by a
competent Court of law. Furthermore, since the sanction under the
said Section can only be granted after ascertaining the nexus of the
alleged offences with the discharge of official duties of the public
servant the impugned action of the Governor in passing the order
 dated is entirely contrary to law. The application for sanction also
does not make out and does not contain allegations about any
offences purported to have been committed by the Hon’ble Chief
Minister in discharge of his official duty as is required to be
established under the contours of Section 218 of the BNSS. Therefore
since the application seeking sanction to prosecute under Section
218 BNSS 2023 is not maintainable it warranted immediate rejection
from the Governor.

aa. The impugned order is, therefore, not only procedurally flawed but
also substantively defective. The failure to adhere to the mandatory
requirements of Section 17A of the PC Act and 218 of the BNSS
demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legal framework
governing the prosecution of public servants and further underscores
the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Governor's decision. As a
result, the impugned order is liable to be quashed in its entirety.

ab. The impugned order is tainted by legal mala fides, manifesting

through the arbitrary, capricious, and hasty actions of the Hon'ble
Governor in granting sanction for prosecution. Legal mala fides, as
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various landmark
judgments, refers to actions taken by a public authority that are
driven by improper motives, extraneous considerations, or a lack of
genuine intent to exercise discretion fairly and impartially. In the
present case, the circumstances leading to the issuance of the
impugned order clearly indicate that the Governor’s decision was
influenced by factors other than a dispassionate and lawful exercise
of his duties.

ac. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without due
consideration of the offences alleged in the application. The
Respondent No 3has filed the present complaint with an ulterior
 motive, seeking sanction for prosecution under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12
and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 59,
61, 62, 201, 227, 228, 229, 239, 314, 316(5), 318(1), 318(2),
318(3), 319, 322, 324, 324(1), 324(2), 324(3), 335, 336, 338 and
Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This invocation
of sections appears to be a mechanical exercise, lacking any
substantive understanding of the basic principles of law and
established legal standards. The Governor has failed to consider that
the offences are not made out and the offences alleged do not even
meet the basic threshold established. The complaint is fundamentally
devoid of merit and factual basis, as the essential ingredients
required to substantiate the allegations under the cited sections are
conspicuously absent. Consequently, the proceedings sought to be
initiated should have been dismissed at the outset, as they do not
meet the requisite legal thresholds and are otherwise legally
unfounded.

ANTECEDENTS OF RESPONDENT NO 3

ad. The credibility of the applicant, Respondent No. 3, Mr. T.J. Abraham,
is a crucial factor that should have been considered by the Hon'ble
Governor before issuing the impugned order. He is a habitual litigant
with a well-documented history of engaging in blackmail, extortion,
and the misuse of legal processes for personal gain. His conduct has
been repeatedly condemned by various courts, including the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which imposed a cost of Rs. 25 lakh on him in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16056-16057/2017, for abusing the concept
of public interest litigation.

ae. In addition to his history of vexatious litigation, the respondent

no. 3 has also been involved in criminal activities. Notably, an FIR
was registered against him on 25.07.2023, for offences including
 extortion, outraging the modesty of a woman, and criminal
intimidation, under Sections 384, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The complaint, filed by Dr. B. Sudha, a government
official, alleges that Mr. Abraham attempted to blackmail and
intimidate her. Given these serious criminal antecedents, it is evident
that he lacks the credibility and moral standing to initiate legal
proceedings against the Petitioner, particularly those that could have
far-reaching consequences for the governance of the State. The
locus standi of the complainant and their bona fides are critical
factors that must be scrutinized before allowing any legal action to
proceed, particularly when it involves public interest or the exercise
of constitutional powers by high authorities like the Governor. In the
present case, the Governor's failure to consider the criminal
antecedents and lack of credibility of the respondent no 3 before
issuing the impugned order constitutes a serious lapse in the exercise
of his discretion and renders the order legally unsustainable.

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS

af. The impugned order is not only legally flawed but also appears to be
motivated by extraneous considerations and political vendetta. The
extraordinary haste with which the Governor acted on the application
of respondent no. 3, coupled with the selective urgency displayed in
this case, strongly suggests that the decision was influenced by
factors other than a fair and impartial assessment of the facts and
the law.

ag. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh

(1980) 2 SCC 471, has held that actions taken by public authorities
that are influenced by extraneous considerations or political motives
amount to an abuse of power and are liable to be quashed. The Court
emphasized that public power must be exercised solely for public
 good and not for advancing personal or political interests. In the
present case, the impugned order appears to have been issued not
in the interest of justice or good governance, but to serve the political
objectives of certain vested interests who seek to destabilize the
government.

ah. It is submitted that the Governor has failed to take into consideration
the fact that the Government, considering the facts reported in the
newspapers/media regarding the allegations about the allotment of
sites by the Mysore Urban Development Authority, have constituted
a Single Member Inquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. P.N.
Desai, Retired Judge of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to conduct a
high-level inquiry to thoroughly investigate these very same
allegations who have been directed to submit an enquiry report
within 6 months.

ai. The Hon’ble Governor had sought reports from the Chief Secretary
on 5/07/2024 and 15/07/2024 on the subject matter of alleged
irregularities in site allotment by the Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA). The chief secretary submitted his report on
26.07.2024. The Chief Secretary in his reply has, inter alia,
highlighted that direction contained in Governor’s letter dated
15/07/2024 was already acted upon by way of constitution of a
Judicial Commission of enquiry under the Chairmanship of Justice P.
N. Desai, vide Government Order of 14/07/2024, to examine the
whole MUDA issue. A very detailed Terms of Reference has been
issued. When such being the case the complaint given by the
respondent no. 3 ought not to be entertained and the order of
sanction should not have been issued, awaiting the enquiry report
from Justice PN Desai.
aj. The Council of Ministers, having deliberated on the facts and legal
provisions, of the application filed by Respondent No. 3, has
unequivocally recommended that the Governor should not grant
sanction for prosecution against the Petitioner, the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of Karnataka. The recommendation is grounded in a
thorough analysis of both the factual matrix and the applicable law,
including relevant constitutional provisions.

ak. After a comprehensive discussion on the legal, factual, and

procedural aspects of the matter, the Council of Ministers, has
unanimously resolved that the Governor should reject the application
for sanction submitted by respondent no 3. The reasons for this
recommendation are manifold and are rooted in the established
principles of law and the constitutional framework governing the
powers and duties of the Governor.

al. The allegations made by respondents do not establish a prima facie

case against the Petitioner that would warrant the grant of sanction
for prosecution. The factual matrix, as detailed above, demonstrates
that the entire case is built on baseless accusations, without any
substantive evidence to support the charges.

am. The application filed by respondent no 3 suffers from serious legal

infirmities, as it does not comply with the mandatory procedural
requirements outlined in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Notably, the
application fails to satisfy the conditions laid down under Sections
17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section
 218 of the BNSS, which govern the process of seeking sanction for
prosecution.

an. The Hon’ble Governor has failed to take note of the fact that the
application for sanction dated 26.07.24, suffers from serious legal
infirmities and was not maintainable on a reading of the provisions
of section 17A, of The prevention of corruption act, 1988 and section
218 of the BNSS 2023 along with settled legal position as envisaged
from the judgments referred to in the cabinet note. An application
for previous approval under section 17A of the Prevention of
corruption Act, 1988, can be made only by police officer and not
anyone else.The Hon’ble Governor failed to take note of the fact that
the application for sanction was also premature since the applicant
had filed a complaint to the Lokayuktha Police on 18.07.2024 and
thereafter had also not followed the mandatory procedure as laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava.

ao. The crux of the issue is that Smt. Parvathi the wife of the Petitioner
has been compensated for having lost her lands to the MUDA without
the due process of law. Her constitutional right under Article 300A
having been infringed, the MUDA has on her agreeing to the
compensatory mechanism allotted her with 38,284 sqft in lieu of the
1,48,104 sqft of land lost. There is absolutely no legal infirmity or
procedural irregularity in the compensation given to Smt. Parvathi
and the mechanism adopted by the MUDA while doing so. The entire
allegations made by the Respondent no. 3 in his petition dated
26/07/24, even if admitted to be true, does not disclose any offence,
much less the offences alleged. Therefore, absolutely no grounds
whatsoever both on facts and in law have been made out in the
request for sanction and accordingly the Hon’ble Governor ought not
 to have acted on basis of such a request in issuing the impugned
order.

ap. The Hon’ble Governor has failed to take note of the fact that the
application for sanction dated 26.07.24, suffers from serious legal
infirmities and was not maintainable on a reading of the provisions
of section 17A, 19 OF The prevention of corruption act, 1988 and
section 218 of the BNS 2023 along with settled legal position as
envisaged from the judgments referred to in the cabinet note. An
application for previous approval under section 17A of the Prevention
of corruption Act, 1988, can be made only by police officer and not
anyone else. Hence the impugned order passed by the Governor
without due consideration of the above facts is liable to be set aside.

aq. The impugned order suffers from legal and factual malafides in as
much as it is passed without complying with Constitutional mandate
under Article 163 and without due considerations with the mandate
provided in the provisions of the PC Act and BNSS 2023. The
impugned order suffers from total non application of mind and lack
of any reasons and is accordingly liable to be rejected. The 1st
respondent has thrown to wind all known tenets of law in passing the
impugned order and is hence liable to be set aside.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER

The impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Governor is in violation of

the principles of natural justice and not sustainable under law. Prima
Facie the order of sanction is illegal and without authority of law. The
Hon’ble Governor has failed to examine the legal prepositions and has
exercised his powers, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of
India. Governor has passed the order without proper application of mind
and without due consideration of the facts and circumstances. The
Petitioner submits that a prima facie case exists for the quashing of the
impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, granting
sanction for prosecution against the Petitioner. The said order is ex-facie
illegal and suffers from several legal infirmities, including non-
compliance with mandatory statutory provisions such as Section 17A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The issuance of the impugned order, without due
application of mind, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and
influenced by extraneous considerations, raises serious concerns about
its validity. The Petitioner submits that, in the absence of interim relief,
there is a grave and imminent risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner’s
reputation and the effective functioning of his office as the Chief Minister
of Karnataka. Such harm, if inflicted, cannot be adequately remedied at
a later stage. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favors the
grant of interim relief as prayed for. Allowing the impugned order to take
effect would lead to severe prejudice against the Petitioner, disrupt the
governance of the State, and potentially result in political destabilization.
Given the legal malafides, procedural irregularities, and the hasty nature
of the Governor’s decision, it is imperative that this Hon’ble Court
intervenes to stay the execution and operation of the impugned order
until the writ petition is finally adjudicated. The public interest also
necessitates the grant of interim relief, as the smooth functioning of the
State Government and the upholding of the rule of law are at stake. In
light of the above, the Petitioner respectfully prays for the issuance of
interim relief to preserve the status quo and prevent any further action
pursuant to the impugned order, pending the final decision of this
Hon’ble Court. The order of sanction has been passed, violating the
principles of natural justice. It is submitted that during the pendency of
the above petition is the impugned order of sanction is not stayed, the
 petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated at a later stage. No prejudice whatsoever will be caused
to the Respondents if the interim order granted. The balance of
convenience is heavily in the favour of the petitioner. It is therefore just
and proper to grant the interim relief as prayed for in this Writ Petition.
If the Interim Order is not granted, the petitioner would be put to great
prejudice and irreparable damage due to the pendency of the complaints
filed by Respondent No. 3 & 4, pending before the Special Court at
different stages.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,

or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 16.08.2024
passed the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, and forwarded by
the respondent no. 2 to the Petitioner on 17.08.2024 bearing
No. GS 40 ADM 2024, granting prior approval and sanction
against the petitioner, a copy of which is herein produced as
ANNEXURE A, as being illegal and ab intio void.

B. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.

INTERIM PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

A. Stay the operation of the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed

the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, and forwarded by the respondent
 no. 2 to the Petitioner on 17.08.2024 bearing No. GS 40 ADM 2024,
granting prior approval and sanction against the petitioner, a copy of
which is herein produced as ANNEXURE A.

B. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity.

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)
Address for Service:
SHATHABISH SHIVANNA
KAR/1510/2019
SAMRUDH SURAJ HEGDE
KAR/2387/2021
ABHISHEK JANARDHAN
KAR/930/2020
AKS LEGAL
NO. 151, 1ST MAIN,
MLA LAYOUT, RT NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 032
+91 – 9741763660
[email protected]
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W.P.No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND
State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Siddaramaiah Aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Siddarame Gowda, Chief

Minister of Karnataka, R/at No. 6, Cauvery Crescent, Bengaluru – 560001
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above case and I am well conversant with

the facts of the case as such deposing herein under.

2. I state that the averments made in paragraphs 1 to __ of the Writ

Petition to this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
information.

3. I state that the Annexures herein produced at Annexure A is the

certified copy and Annexure B-N are the true copies of the original.

Identified by me,

Advocate Deponent
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908
For the reasons accompanying this application below, this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to dispense the production of the typed copies of the
Application for Sanction filed by Respondent No. 3 dated 26.07.2024
produced as ANNEXURE B and the production of typed copies of the
decision of the Council of Ministers dated 01.08.2024, along with the
attached Annexures 1-29 produced as ANNEXURE E. The Petitioner
undertakes to procure and produce the same before this Hon’ble Court in 8
weeks.

WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased

to dispense the production of the typed copies of Annexure B and E, in
the interest of justice and equity.

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND
State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Siddaramaiah Aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Siddarame Gowda, Chief
Minister of Karnataka, R/at No. 6, Cauvery Crescent, Bengaluru – 560001
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above case and I am well conversant with

the facts of the case as such deposing herein under.
2. I state that it will take me 8 weeks to procure and produce the typed
portion of the relevant manuscripts in Annexures B & E,

WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased

to dispense the production of the typed copies of the application for
sanction filed by Respondent No. 3 dated 26.07.2024 vide ANNEXURE B
and the production of the typed copies of the decision of the Council of
Ministers dated 01.08.2024, along with the attached Annexures 1-29 herein
produced as ANNEXURE E in the interest of justice and equity.

PLACE: BENGALURU
DATE:
Identified by me

Advocate DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Page

1. IA for Dispensation u/s 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure
2. Affidavit

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W. P. No. /2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Siddaramaiah Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondents

INDEX VOLUME- 2

1. Annexure C- The show cause notice dated

26.07.2024
2. Annexure D- The copy of the cabinet note dated
31.07.2024 along with annexures
3. Annexure E- The decision of the Council of
Ministers dated 01.08.2024, along with the attached
Annexures 1-29
4. Annexure F- The copy of the reply dated
03.08.2024 sent by the Petitioner
5. Annexure G- The copy of the communication dated
05.07.2024
6. Annexure H- The copy of the communication dated
15.07.2024
7. Annexure J- The copy of the application against
Shashikala Jolle dated 09.12.2021
8. Annexure K - The copy of the application against
H D Kumaraswamy dated 21.11.2023
 9. Annexure L- The copy of the application against
Murgesh Nirani dated 26.02.2024
10. Annexure M- The copy of the application against
Janardhan Reddy dated 13.05.2024
11. Annexure N- The copy of the Standard operating
procedure dated 03.09.2021
12. Vakalat
13. IA for Dispensation a/w Affidavit

Place: Bengaluru
Date: 19.08.2024 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
(SHATHABISH SHIVANNA)