CM Siddaramaiah welcomes SC ruling in MUDA case
A statement issued by the Chief Minister's office called the ruling a step towards justice and a blow to politically motivated interference.
Referring to media reports, the statement read: 'Supreme Court upholds judgment of the High Court quashing ED notice in Parvathi and Byrathi Suresh MUDA Case. SLPs dismissed. Court cautioned about making adverse remarks against ED. They stated that matter must not be politicised. Fight your battles before the electorate. Dismissed as they find no fault in the learned single judge's order. Justice has prevailed and ED interference has been put to an end in MUDA case." The MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) case involves alleged irregularities in land allotted to Parvathi Siddaramaiah, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
In the MUDA case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land, which had been 'acquired" by the MUDA.
The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts.
It is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk.
The Lokayukta as well as the ED are probing the matter simultaneously.
The Enforcement Directorate had issued notices to both under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which were later quashed by the Karnataka High Court.
The ED had challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). PTI GMS ROH
view comments
First Published:
July 21, 2025, 12:30 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Corruption case against CBI judge: Don't need sanction to prosecute a private person: ED on developer's plea
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday told Punjab and Haryana high court that issue of prosecution sanction in the FIR involving a former CBI judge, Haryana, could not have been raised by the Gurugram based developer, who is demanding quashing of the FIR. The court was hearing a petition filed by real estate firm M3M's director Roop Bansal seeking quashing of an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) ED's counsel told the court that the petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that previous approval of the governor under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been taken before registration of FIR in relation to a judicial officer cannot be raised by the petitioner, who is a private individual and not the concerned public servant. The court was hearing a petition filed by real estate firm M3M's director Roop Bansal seeking quashing of an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar. The case stems from an April 2023 FIR, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who was then special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Bansal and others who were accused in some FIRs being investigated by CBI and ED, pending before his court. The chief justice, Sheel Nagu, last month had withdrawn the case from a judge and assigned it to himself after receiving some 'complaints'. Subsequently, the chief justice also recused from hearing the case and is now being heard by the bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. The case will now be taken up on July 30.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
News18 Daily Digest, July 23: Behind Dhankhar's Resignation Parliament Deadlock
In today's News18 Daily Digest: Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation as Vice-President sparks speculation; Parliament logjam continues; PM Modi heads to UK and Maldives with key FTA on agenda; Rana Daggubati appears before ED in betting scam case; Telangana government clears Pawan Kalyans film release, and more. Tune in for top news from India and around the world...
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Consumer is king, says SC on owner details display
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the Uttar Pradesh government's direction to eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes with the ownership details of the food joints, underlining that 'consumer is the king' and should be allowed to make an informed food choice. Consumer is king, says SC on owner details display A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh directed hotel owners to display their licence and registration certificate, as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, and posted the matter after two weeks for compliance of its order. 'The sentiments of devotees should not be affected. At the same time, the livelihood of shop owners should not be affected too. The court has to strike a balance,' the bench remarked. Arriving at a balance, the court was conscious that consumers need to be given the choice to decide whether they would prefer to eat from a pure-vegetarian hotel or one that serves vegetarian food during the yatra. 'We are concerned with consumers. It must be his choice. Ultimately, consumer is the king. We need to prioritise the interest of consumers,' it added. The order came as the court was hearing applications filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) lawmaker Mahua Moitra and Delhi University professor Apoorvanand Jha, challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's press note dated June 25 directing food sellers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes, containing ownership details of the eatery and other legal compliance. The petitioners argued that the regulations issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) do not permit for QR coding. They also cited a July 22, 2024 order of the top court that stayed a similar direction by the UP police last year directing the eatery owners to display their as well as their employees' names in front of the shop. The applications claimed the present order issued by the UP commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA) was an attempt to 'circumvent' the stay by introducing requirements for QR code. When senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Jha, sought a clarification that the name of owners need not be displayed on QR code, the bench said: 'All these issues are left open. We are not going into this issue. You may challenge it before the high court. In any case it is infructuous…We are informed today is the last day of Yatra and in any case it is likely to end in near future.' It added: 'At this stage we only pass an order that all hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and registration certificate as required statutorily.' The UP government, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, said the requirement for QR code has been issued by the competent authority under FSSA. The state submitted that not a single affected shop owner had approached the court and questioned the right of the petitioners to challenge the state's direction. 'These devotees are highly sentimental. They would not like to have food from a shop which used to serve non-vegetarian food till a month ago using the same utensils,' Rohatgi said. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the applicants, said: 'This is all about identity politics. This is the most divisive policy to ostracise a minority community during this Yatra which alienates them. It sows the seeds of identity division, is a direct assault on secularism and is per se unconstitutional, violating right to equality, right to practice profession and right to life under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 [of Constitution].' During this time of the year, he said, all shops along the Kanwar route strictly sell only vegetarian food. 'You can boycott a food based on the menu card, not on the identity of the owner…,' Singhvi added.
