Bengaluru, Sep 12 (IANS): The Karnataka High Court on Thursday completed the hearing of arguments and counterarguments on the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision to grant consent for his prosecution in the alleged MUDA scam and reserved its order in the matter.

The arguments and counterarguments were submitted for six days and the bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, is likely to pronounce the judgement over the matter in a few days.

The bench had asked the counsels to complete their arguments and counterarguments by the end of the day.

CM Siddaramaiah's writ petition seeks interim relief from the prosecution order and also quashing the order of the Governor. Fingers are crossed over the verdict in the case as it will have a direct impact on state politics.

If the bench upholds the order of the Governor, it will become difficult for CM Siddaramaiah to continue in his position and if the order comes in favour of him, it is going to be a huge embarrassment for the Governor.

Appearing for Siddaramaiah, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, resuming his argument, submitted that the Governor is not elected by the people and is appointed. In this context, the Governor has more accountability.

The Governor gave consent for prosecution in a 23-year-old case, and this action appears to be more politically motivated than imposing the President's rule, he added.

As the bench questioned Singhvi, noting that the Governor does not need to adhere to the decision of the Cabinet and it is left to his discretion, he argued that the Governor cannot reject the Cabinet's advice without providing reasons.

"No reasons were specified, and without them, the Cabinet's decision was simply dismissed as wrongful. In his five to six-page order, the Governor did not provide any substantial explanation and merely stated that he would not comply with the Cabinet's advice, " he said, adding that the Governor's order lacked discretion and that the action against the Chief Minister was taken in haste.

Singhvi further stated that Siddaramaiah had not signed any files related to the MUDA case.

"Several officers have worked on and moved away from the case since it came to light. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been a legislator since 1984, and every matter has two dimensions. In the last 23 years, 23 officers in MUDA might have been involved in the case. So why is only CM Siddaramaiah being targeted? It is because attempts are being made to destabilise the Congress government," he said.

Singhvi also argued that the Governor should have explained in his order how he had exercised his discretion and accused him of acting at the behest of invisible hands. He pointed out that there is not a single reason mentioned by the Governor for his decision.

"I am not insisting on presenting 1,000 pages," he said, "but a show-cause notice was issued within 24 hours based on a complaint by a private individual". He added that the Governor should use his discretion rarely.

The opinion of the investigating officer should be considered, and only then should a decision be made. More reasons are needed for not considering the Cabinet’s decision, he said, submitting that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clearly defined the role of the Governor in this regard.

The MUDA site allotment is done only on paper, the allotment on the 50:50 ratio was done during the tenure of the BJP government, and there is no role of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Singhvi stated.

K.G. Raghavan, counsel for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna and Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, appearing for CM Siddaramaiah, also presented their views before the bench.

While the CM is represented by Singhvi, the Governor’s office is represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, presenting his arguments for CM Siddaramaiah submitted to the court that the Governor cannot act as an investigator.

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

Lawyer Lakshmi Iyengar, appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, argued that there was evidence of Siddaramaiah’s role in the MUDA case. "CM Siddaramaiah’s wife does not have any source of income. The property of the wife in this case has to be considered belonging to the husband," she maintained.

In an important development, the Karnataka government had suspended former MUDA Commissioner, GT Dinesh Kumar in connection with the charges against him during his tenure at the civic agency, pending an enquiry.

Meanwhile, Siddaramaiah, who had earlier cancelled his engagements for the court hearing, was seen on city rounds in Bengaluru as the court began hearing the case.

He inspected BDA flyover construction work near Hebbal, asphalt work on the service road near Kariyammana Agrahara on the Outer Ring Road asphalt work near Hennur Junction, and reviewed metro construction plans near KR Puram Railway Station and held discussion with officials. Subsequently, he travelled to Vidhana Soudha via the metro and interacted with commuters.

However, the Chief Minister cancelled the press meet organised at his home office 'Krishna' after the city rounds.