Bengaluru, Aug 31: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday adjourned the hearing on the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's nod to open investigation against the senior Congress leader for his alleged involvement in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam case to September 2.

A High Court bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, which heard the matter stated it has to decide whether the investigation nod was needed or not, and continued its interim order for the lower court restricting it to proceed further in the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluded submissions on Saturday on behalf of the Governor.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for CM Siddaramaiah, had already presented his arguments, seeking to quash the Governor's order.

Defending the Governor, Tushar Mehta submitted that the decision was made lawfully and all due process was followed.

Mehta submitted that there was no necessity to even look at the Cabinet advice to the Governor.

He further noted that the Supreme Court judgments referred by CM Siddaramaiah’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi are in favour of the Governor. These judgments have recognised the discretionary powers of the Governor.

The Governor took cognisance of a 91-page Cabinet decision to withdraw the showcause notice to CM Siddaramaiah and reject the petition against him.

Mehta emphasised that since Cabinet ministers are selected by the Chief Minister himself, it is not imperative for the Governor to consider the Cabinet's decision when a complaint is made against the CM.

He added that it is unlikely for the Cabinet to take a decision against the CM.

Mehta further submitted that the relief package ratio was changed from 40:60 to 50:50 and that CM Siddaramaiah's son, former MLA Yathindra Siddaramaiah, had attended the General Body Meeting of MUDA in this regard. Alternative sites were allotted in a reputed locality.

Despite all this, the state Cabinet took a biased decision in support of CM Siddaramaiah, he argued.

In this context, the Governor made an independent decision in the matter using his discretion.

The Governor took into account the Cabinet's advice, CM Siddaramaiah’s clarification, and the petitioner's complaint.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Tushar Mehta submitted that those in power often believe they will not face punishment.

The Bench observed that under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the police are not supposed to take up an investigation without prior permission.

However, it is not necessary for the police to obtain permission themselves; anyone can approach the appropriate authorities to obtain such permission.

Under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is decided whether an investigation is required or not needed.

He also argued that the Governor is not obliged to respond to every clarification provided by the Cabinet and CM Siddaramaiah in this case. "The Governor's order clearly states his position, and not everything can be explained at this stage due to the potential for destruction of evidence," he said.

Tushar Mehta also pointed out that the charges in all three complaints against CM Siddaramaiah were the same, and there was no need to issue a show-cause notice in connection with the other two complaints.

Senior counsel Manindar Singh, making submissions for one of the petitioners Snehamayi Krishna, pleaded with the court to note three figures - "Rs 3.24 lakh", "Rs 5.98 lakh" and "Rs 55 crore". When the land was acquired, the price of the disputed land was Rs 3.24 lakh. It was sold for Rs 5.98 lakh and now the value of the land is claimed to be Rs 55 crore. In this background, there is a need for an investigation into the case by an independent agency, he said.

Senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi appearing for petitioner Pradeep Kumar submitted that the cabinet does not have eligibility to advise the Governor in certain matters. There can’t be a cabinet without the Chief Minister. On the one hand CM claims that there is no illegalities and on the other the inquiry commission has been constituted by him. The Governor has mentioned it and the accused under the `17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can’t question the Governor.

Another Senior counsel Ranganath Reddy argued that when Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was the Deputy Chief Minister, the de-notification and land conversion was done and when the decision was made to allot alternative land on the rationing of 50:50, Siddaramaiah was the CM.

Counsel Reddy also brought to the notice of the court that CM Siddaramaiah is claiming that four petitions are pending before the Governor. The consent was given in two of the cases and another two have been sent back for clarifications. He submitted that a complaint should be lodged against CM Siddaramaiah for providing false information to the court.

On Thursday, the Karnataka High Court adjourned the hearing of the writ petition filed by CM Siddaramaiah, challenging Governor Gehlot's decision to give his nod to launch a probe against the veteran Congress leader, to Saturday.

Meanwhile, Singhvi argued that the Governor did not follow the principles of natural justice when granting probe permission against CM Siddaramaiah.

He also mentioned that the Governor did not consider the advice given by the Cabinet in this matter.

At this point, the Bench had questioned Singhvi whether the Governor is required to take the advice of the Cabinet in matters involving complaints against the CM.

Singhvi responded that the Governor has to take such advice, maintaining that there are limitations to the Governor's powers.

Represented by senior counsel Singhvi, the CM has sought interim relief as well as quashing of the Governor's order, calling it unconstitutional.