Mining case: SC to hear Dharam's plea against HC order on August 1

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to consider a plea by former chief minister N Dharam Singh against a High Court order that allowed recovery of over Rs 23 crore from him for the losses caused to the exchequer in the transportation of illegally extracted iron ore.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha put the special leave petition filed by the senior Congress leader for consideration on August 1.

During the brief hearing, the court, at one point of time, said, “Let the high court proceed with the case. We will say there is no stay. Whatever the outcome of the HC’s proceedings they would be subject to the decision of this court.”

The court’s observations came as the counsel, representing Singh, said it would take senior advocate P P Rao about a day’s time to conclude his arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

As Rao subsequently appeared, he agreed to reduce the total time required for him to advance the arguments. The court then said it would grant him only one hour’s time to finish his arguments.

Additional Advocate General Devdutt Kamat, representing the state, said he would complete his arguments within 15 minutes.

In his submission, Rao said the issue related to a substantial question of law - if the immunity granted to the Governor is open to judicial review when he exercises his power as competent authority under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act in granting sanction of prosecution of a public servant.

The Governor, acting as a competent authority in the complaints against the then chief minister, had in June 2009 rejected the recommendation of the Lokayukta, which was not open to judicial review, Singh had claimed.

‘No immunity’

The Karnataka High Court, however, has taken a view that since the Governor acted as competent authority under the Lokayukta Act, there was no immunity attached to his decision.

The Lokayukta, in its first report on mining, had held Singh guilty of misconduct and responsible for causing losses to the exchequer by permitting transportation of 2.38 lakh tonnes of ore, mined and stored illegally by landowners in five districts during his tenure as chief minister.

Senior advocate F S Nariman, appointed as amicus curiae, had said that in the present case a decision under Section 12(4) has been taken by the Governor acting as the “competent authority” under the Act and not as Governor of the state.

Such competent authority cannot claim any immunity under Article 361 (1) of the Constitution. This immunity is conferred on him only for acts done or purporting to be done by him as Governor under the Constitution.

On Monday, Rao submitted that Nariman may also require some time to advance his arguments.

The bench, however, said they had gone through his written submission and if necessary, they would seek his further assistance.