NATESH D Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition prays for issuance of an order/writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision of the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984, who in this instance is his Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka. The Report has been signed on 23.06.2009 by the 'Competent Authority' and it concludes that "no action for recovery of Rs.23,22,11,850/-(Rupees twenty three crores twenty two lakhs eleven thousand eight hundred and fifty) or any other sum is required to be taken against Shri. N. Dharam Singh. This decision of the Competent Authority may be intimated to the Hon'ble Lokayukta, as required by Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 immediately." The second prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a direction to the State of Karnataka, the Competent Authority under the Lokayukta Act and the Commissioner for Mines and Geological Resources and Director of Mines and Geology, Bangalore to initiate appropriate action for recovery of the loss allegedly caused to the State Exchequer, due to the action attributable to Shri. N. Dharam Singh, Member of Parliament and former Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka.

(2.) SHRI. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shri. Dharam Singh Respondent No.4 i.e., the former Chief Minister, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition vice Respondent No.2 i.e., the then Governor of Karnataka namely Shri Rameshwar Thakur. Reliance has been placed on Article 361 of the Constitution of India which provides that the Governor of a State "shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties." In the context of this Article, the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Prasad �Vs- Union of India (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 1, has enunciated the law thus:-

(3.) IT is indeed remarkable that the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.4 as well as the learned Counsel for the Petitioner have relied on these very paragraphs to buttress their respective contentions. The learned Advocate General has supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the decision taken by the Governor acting as Competent Authority under the Lokayukta Act is statutory rather than Constitutional and accordingly, no immunity attaches to such actions or decisions of the Competent Authority even though they are of the Governor. Respondent No.4 is the former Chief Minister of the State who does not have allegiance to the party presently in power. We can only wonder whether the learned Advocate General would adopt the same position and canvas this contention if the allegations were against a Chief Minister loyal to the present political dispensation. Fortunately, Courts are insulated from partisan/considerations; Judges are impervious to the pulls of real politik, and must analyse the law objectively so that their decisions abide, apply and endure in all circumstances.