Bengaluru:In a major development regarding the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case allegedly involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the petitioner Snehamayi Krishna has filed a writ petition before the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, questioning the single bench order of quashing his appeal for the CBI investigation into the MUDA case.

The petition appeal petition has been filed on Tuesday, when the budget session is in motion and the development is seen as a setback for CM Siddaramaiah, who is all set to present the budget on March 7. The petition prayed to set aside the order dated February 7 passed by the learned single judge.

“Grant any other or further relief/s to the Appellant which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and thinks proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice,” the petition further prayed.

The petitioner has stated in the appeal petition that he reserves the right and liberty to challenge the closure report filed by the Lokayukta before the jurisdictional court and does not impugn the closure report in these proceedings. The Union government, State of Karnataka, The Director, CBI, SP CBI, Karnataka Lokayukta SP Mysuru, Karnataka DGP, ADGP Lokayukta, Vijayanagar police station inspector are also made as parties in the appeal petition. Siddaramaiah is named as respondent number 9, his wife B.M. Parvathi as 10th and brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy as 11th and land owner D. Devaraju as 12th respondents. However, in the MUDA scam, Siddaramaiah is named as accused number one, his wife Parvathi is second, Mallikarjunaswamy third and Devaraju as fourth accused persons. The memorandum of writ appeal is made under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 read with Rule 27 of the High Court Writ Proceedings Rules 1977.

The appeal petition is filed through Vasantha Kumara and Associates, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru.

The petition claimed that the Learned Single Judge completely erred in framing questions that were never urged and pleaded before the court. The Appellant never doubted nor did he question the credibility of the Lokayukta and it is only due to the Respondent No.9’s ( Siddaramaiah) influence over the state machinery that the entire investigation be tainted with real likelihood of bias and would not instil confidence in the public or the complainant.