<p>A JD(S) leader who challenged the Karnataka High Court order quashing sanction for prosecution of former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa, on Monday sought time from the Supreme Court for filing a petition questioning the Governor’s fresh order declining permission to launch criminal proceedings against the BJP leader in a land scam case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioner Sirajin Basha, submitted before a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre that he will challenge Governor Vajubhai Vala’s order in two weeks.<br /><br />He, however, claimed that the fresh look at the facts of the case by the Governor arose only after the High Court order.<br /><br />His response came after the bench asked, “If on same set of facts, the Governor declined the sanction and nobody challenged that order, can we re-open the issue?”<br /><br />Ramachandran assailed the High Court order of November last, saying it had cited an “uneasy relationship” between then chief minister Yeddyurappa and then Governor Hansraj Bhardwaj and set aside the January 21, 2011 sanction, also taking into the fact that in granting permission for prosecution for five cases of land denotification, he did not advert to the advice of the council of Ministers.<br /><br />“No Governor having easy relations with the CM is going to grant sanction for prosecution,” he said, adding the sanction could be quashed only on allegation of bias, mala fide intent or apprehension of bias.<br /><br />The court apparently agreed to his view, saying, “We have seen this phenomenon in the last 30 years only.”<br /><br />Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, appearing for the BJP vice-president, submitted that Bhardwaj had an acrimonious relationship with Yeddyurappa and the complainant associated with a rival political party just walked into the Raj Bhavan and got a sanction without following the due process of law.<br /><br />The apex court, however, adjourned the matter, giving time to the petitioner-complainant for filing a fresh petition for challenging Vala’s order.<br /><br /></p>
<p>A JD(S) leader who challenged the Karnataka High Court order quashing sanction for prosecution of former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa, on Monday sought time from the Supreme Court for filing a petition questioning the Governor’s fresh order declining permission to launch criminal proceedings against the BJP leader in a land scam case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioner Sirajin Basha, submitted before a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre that he will challenge Governor Vajubhai Vala’s order in two weeks.<br /><br />He, however, claimed that the fresh look at the facts of the case by the Governor arose only after the High Court order.<br /><br />His response came after the bench asked, “If on same set of facts, the Governor declined the sanction and nobody challenged that order, can we re-open the issue?”<br /><br />Ramachandran assailed the High Court order of November last, saying it had cited an “uneasy relationship” between then chief minister Yeddyurappa and then Governor Hansraj Bhardwaj and set aside the January 21, 2011 sanction, also taking into the fact that in granting permission for prosecution for five cases of land denotification, he did not advert to the advice of the council of Ministers.<br /><br />“No Governor having easy relations with the CM is going to grant sanction for prosecution,” he said, adding the sanction could be quashed only on allegation of bias, mala fide intent or apprehension of bias.<br /><br />The court apparently agreed to his view, saying, “We have seen this phenomenon in the last 30 years only.”<br /><br />Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, appearing for the BJP vice-president, submitted that Bhardwaj had an acrimonious relationship with Yeddyurappa and the complainant associated with a rival political party just walked into the Raj Bhavan and got a sanction without following the due process of law.<br /><br />The apex court, however, adjourned the matter, giving time to the petitioner-complainant for filing a fresh petition for challenging Vala’s order.<br /><br /></p>
