HC dismisses PIL against Siddaramaiah

CH NEWS, BENGALURU Bringing temporary legal relief to senior political leadership, the Karnataka High Court formally dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a judicial directive compelling the state Governor to grant sanction for the prosecution of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The high-profile petition revolved around historical allegations concerning the illegal renewal and allocation of mining licenses during Siddaramaiah's tenure as Chief Minister. A division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and K.S. Bharath Kumar delivered the order after evaluating arguments presented by state counsels and reviewing the procedural history of related complaints. During the court proceedings, Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state government, strongly opposed the maintainability of the petition. He informed the bench that a private complaint filed on identical charges had already been thoroughly dismissed by the trial court. Furthermore, the Karnataka Lokayukta had previously declined to entertain the matter. State counsels also highlighted that a separate PIL covering the exact same factual matrix had already been filed earlier, making the current petition legally redundant. Facing rigorous judicial scrutiny regarding the maintainability of the petition, the legal counsel representing the petitioner ultimately sought permission from the bench to withdraw the case. Taking note of the submissions and the prior dismissal of parallel complaints across judicial forums, the division bench officially dismissed the PIL. The underlying litigation stemmed from a petition filed by Bengaluru businessman M.P. Venugopal, which alleged that mining leases were renewed in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The petitioner had sought a court-ordered Lokayukta police investigation, the cancellation of contested mining licenses, and the recovery of alleged financial losses inflicted upon the state exchequer. Although the petition had initially faced dismissal due to the non-appearance of the petitioner and their legal counsel, it was later restored before culminating in final dismissal by the High Court division bench.