The High Court of Karnataka on Friday said it would examine whether the law empowered a Minister to stay a Government Order (GO) issued in the name of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution, instead of issuing another GO to stay the earlier one.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order while hearing a PIL petition questioning the legality of the August 3, 2019 direction of Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa to the Additional Chief Secretary. It asked the officer not to issue job code or call for tender until further orders on the works sanctioned in a GO issued on February 1, 2019 in connection with over 1,000 major development projects under the CM’s Nava Bengaluru scheme.
As the Additional Advocate General (AAG) contended that a Minister in charge of a department had the power to issue directions under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, the Bench asked whether exercising powers under these rule, a Cabinet Minister could interfere with a GO, issued after the Cabinet’s approval.
‘Works stalled’
The petitioners — Dasarahalli-Rachenahalli Lake Improvement and Conservation Trust and Jal Samriddhi Lake Improvement and Conservation Trust, Bengaluru — had complained that development works, including works of lake rejuvenation, which were sanctioned by the previous government had been stalled because of the “illegal” intervention of the Chief Minister.
As the AAG raised the locus standi of the petitioners while contending that they appeared to be canvassing for bidders, and the counsel for the petitioners said they had no problem if the court treated the petition as suo motu . The Bench said it would keep open the question of locus standi .
It was also contended by the AAG that the Chief Minister had to interfere for temporarily keeping the tenders on hold, as there were discrepancies in budgetary allocation and the number of projects approved earlier.
Asking the government to file its statements of objection, the Bench adjourned further hearing on the matter till March 16.
