Illegal mining report: I can't let go my baby, says Santosh Hegde-Oct 15, 2011

Illegal mining report: I can't let go my baby, says Santosh Hegde

TNN | Oct 15, 2011, 06.51AM IST


BANGALORE: "Do you think this government will ever implement the report?" then Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh N Hegde had asked about his inquiry into illegal mining when he submitted it on July 27. On Friday, Hegde made it clear he wants to fight it out. "It's my baby, how can I let it go just like that?" he said at a news conference as he answered questions asked by the government (Oct. 14).

"The government is not seeking clarifications on my report, but on its own terms of reference," he added. Though the new Lokayukta needs to clarify this to the government, Hegde thought it necessary to explain his stand. Govt query: Does the Lokayukta have the power to recommend the removal of a legislator or a minister?

Hegde: In exercise of powers conferred under Section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the government referred investigation into illegal mining and asked the Lokayukta to submit a report with specific recommendations. The terms of references said: "To comprehensively inquire into the charges, allegations, complaints of misuse and abuse of the office of any elected representatives, ministers and officers who held or hold office of profit for pecuniary benefit pertaining to illegal/ unregulated mining and incidental issues thereof, resulting in loss of revenue to the government of Karnataka and public undertakings. All instances where the regulations and statutory provisions have been given a go-by and not observed, including environmental and other clearances, to directly or indirectly facilitate and/ or encourage illegal and/ or unregulated mining operations and to suggest remedial measures and suitable action against persons found responsible for their commissions and omissions."

Govt: Do legislators and ministers come under the purview of public servants?

Hegde: Certainly, they do, as explained in the earlier answer.

Govt: Were Articles 164 and 191 of the Constitution followed?

Hegde: The question of these Articles does not arise as the Lokayukta has only made recommendations, and it's up to the government to initiate action. If I'd ordered dismissal or removal of ministers, only then these articles would've been pertinent.

Govt: In instances where the government had referred a case, can the Lokayukta recommend a minister's removal?

Hegde: Yes. When the government's terms of reference are clear about the removal, the Lokayukta can certainly do it.

Govt: None of the persons against whom action was recommended was heard by the Lokayukta. In the interest of natural justice, shouldn't they have been given a chance to speak?

Hegde: In such a reference, no notice is necessary (Dr K Chowappa vs State of Karnataka and others ILR 1990 KAR 798). Where it was felt necessary to obtain clarifications, comments were secured from public servants after issuing notice and considered before recording the findings.

Govt: What action should be taken against 700-plus officials and 'non-officials' named?

Hegde: It's up to to the government and competent authorities. I've only made the recommendations. The reasons given by the government seeking clarifications are rather extraordinary and absolutely frivolous. It's quite evidently a move to delay the process. If it indeed violated constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice, why have they not rejected the report? Also, the Lokayukta post being vacant was an advantage to the government. I don't understand the reason for constituting a committee involving additional chief secretaries to study my report and suggest action. It's like after a judgment is given by a judge, it's referred to the accused to see whether it's good or bad.