Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In the case of G. Puttaswamy Gowda v H.D. Devegowda and Others, a writ petition was filed by one Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda against his admittedly political rival namely Sri H.D. Devegowda, praying therein for quashing the order at Annexure-E by which the Governor of Karnataka had declined to accord sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute Sri H.D. Devegowda. In that petition it was alleged that Sri H.D. Devegowda during his tenure as Minister for Public Works had indulged in series of acts of malpractice amounting to criminal misconduct and thus was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 161, 164 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code coupled with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Allegations with respect to the holding of enquiry by the COD and Smt. Shantakumari Devaraj, the then Deputy Commissioner, Mysore were mentioned therein. The substance of the allegations made in the present petition was identical though the details of all the properties now mentioned in this petition were not submitted. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 24-11-1995 without reserving any liberty to file a fresh petition.

21. In the case of Surendra Babu v State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 16465 of 1996 was filed by one Sri Surendra Babu impleading Sri H.D. Devegowda as respondent 2 therein with a prayer for issuance of direction against the State of Karnataka for initiating further action against respondent 2 therein pursuant to the report of the Lokayukta dated 28-5-1988 after obtaining due sanction from the competent authority. In that petition reference was made to the allegations made by one Sri Puttaswamy Gowda who had, as earlier noticed, filed W.P. No. 15287 of 1988 which was dismissed on 24-11-1995 with the submission that as upon the allegations made by Sri Puttaswamy Gowda, the Lokayukta had directed the enquiry against respondent 2 and submitted a report on 28-5-1988 holding him guilty of offences punishable under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Respondent 2 was alleged to have amassed wealth by illegal means by misusing his position of being a Minister in successive Governments. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner therein filed an application for raising certain additional grounds which were allowed. The learned Judge referred to the report of the Lokayukta and found that in the said report the following allegations made by Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda against Sri H.D. Devegowda were considered.

"The above narration will disclose that G. Puttaswamy Gowda sought permission of the Governor to prosecute the 2nd respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Governor obtained a report from the Lokayukta and on the basis of the report examined the matter and found that no case was made out and thereafter refused to accord sanction. That is, there was an application for sanction, consideration of such an application and the rejection of the application for sanction, by the Governor. The matter therefore ended on 1-10-1988. There is nothing pending thereafter, either before the Government, or the Chief Minister or the Lokayukta. Hence, the question of directing either the Government or the Chief Minister to take action on the Report does not arise.

Now we feel that it is not coincidence that Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda was a petitioner in that case filed against the persons including Sri H.D. Devegowda, the former Prime Minister and Sri J.H. Patel, the present Chief Minister of Karnataka. It was specifically held that Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda had approached the Court with mala fide intentions for inflicting his personal grievance and political vengeance. Directing deletion of his name from the array of petitioners, the petitioner herein was permitted to continue with the writ proceedings. However, in this case we feel that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives and has tried to ignite the process of writ jurisdiction of this Court after the failure of many successive earlier petitions filed against Sri H.D. Devegowda and his family members for the grant of similar relief as prayed in this petition. Such unsuccessful petitions included Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda's petition also.