BENGALURU: The Lokayukta has sought time to obtain official records and submit a clear report before the court in connection with a private complaint concerning the Siddartha Vihar Trust, in which family members of AICC president and Rajya Sabha member Mallikarjun Kharge are trustees.
The development emerged from a memo submitted before the Special Court for cases involving elected representatives by Lokayukta Special Public Prosecutor Venkatesh S. Arabatti on October 6. The memo reportedly includes the current status of the proceedings before the anti-corruption agency and the response the Lokayukta seeks in connection with the private complaint.
The case relates to a complaint filed by N.R. Ramesh, representing the Bribery-Free Karnataka Construction Forum, alleging irregularities in the allotment of land to the Siddartha Vihar Trust. The complaint has questioned the circumstances under which land was allotted to the trust and alleged misuse of official position.
The matter had earlier reached the Karnataka High Court, which permitted the proceedings on the private complaint to continue. Following the High Court’s order, the Special Court dealing with cases involving elected representatives issued a notice to the Lokayukta seeking its response.
According to the material placed before the court, Lokayukta Superintendent of Police Manteshwar S. Jiddi informed the court that the allegations raised in the private complaint are already under examination by the Lokayukta in an earlier complaint registered as Compt/Lok/BCD/5141/2024.
The Lokayukta has indicated that the allegations in the earlier complaint and those raised in the present petition are substantially similar. The agency has already initiated a preliminary examination of the matter under the provisions governing complaints received by the Lokayukta.
The status report submitted by the Lokayukta SP reportedly explains the procedure followed when complaints are received under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. According to the report, complaints are first verified to determine whether the allegations disclose material warranting further examination.
If the preliminary examination indicates allegations that require investigation, the investigating officer must place a proposal before the competent authority for the necessary prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherever applicable. The matter is then processed through the prescribed administrative and legal channels before a formal investigation can proceed.
The Lokayukta’s report has referred to the issue of permission or sanction in the present case. According to the material submitted before the court, the absence of the required permission has prevented the agency from proceeding further with an investigation at this stage.
However, the Lokayukta SP has now sought to obtain the official records connected with the earlier complaint before presenting a final and comprehensive position before the court.
Jiddi reportedly told the court that he had discussed the matter with the officers handling the preliminary examination after the issue came up before the High Court. The officers informed him that the complaint was already pending before the Lokayukta.
The SP therefore sought the relevant information and records from the concerned Lokayukta division. He informed the court that the records relating to complaint Compt/Lok/BCD/5141/2024 would be obtained officially and a clear report would be submitted on the next date of hearing.
The development indicates that the Lokayukta has not yet placed a final investigative conclusion before the court. Instead, the agency is seeking to reconcile the private complaint with the earlier proceedings already pending before its Bengaluru unit.
The complainant’s side, however, has questioned the relevance of the Lokayukta’s status report.
Senior advocate Lakshmi Ayyangar, appearing for the Bribery-Free Karnataka Construction Forum, reportedly argued that the points mentioned in the Lokayukta SP’s report were not relevant to the court’s consideration of the private complaint. She also contended that the filing of a report by the Lokayukta would not prevent the magistrate from exercising powers available under law and considering the complaint independently.
The dispute centres on land allotments involving the Siddartha Vihar Trust. Ramesh has alleged that the Bangalore Development Authority allotted a two-acre site to the trust in 2014, while the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board allotted another two-acre site in 2024. He has alleged that the allotments were made through misuse of official position.
The allegations raised in the private complaint have not been established as facts and remain subject to examination by the competent authorities and the court.
The issue has also acquired political significance following remarks by Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. During a recent visit to Mulbagal, Kumaraswamy questioned why authorities had not registered an FIR in connection with the Siddartha Vihar Trust matter. His remarks came amid the continuing legal proceedings and debate over the land allotments.
