The Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR and investigation registered by Lokayukta police over allegations that around ₹1.55 crore was misused in Ballari City Corporation works, while allowing authorities to take fresh action after obtaining the required prior approval.
A single-judge bench led by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad, partially allowed four separate petitions filed by Veeresh Savadi, G. Prashanth Naik, retired municipal commissioner Manjunath Karbasappa Nalavadi, M. Thimappa and junior engineer Adarsh, according to a report by Prajavani.
The case concerns allegations of financial misuse in works carried out by the Ballari municipal corporation. The report does not provide details of the individual projects, the alleged nature of the irregularities, or the specific amount attributed to each petitioner. It identifies the total allegation as approximately ₹1.55 crore.
The court made clear that its order does not bring the matter to a complete close. The bench directed the investigating officer to obtain the necessary prior permission from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before proceeding with further action.
Section 17A deals with prior approval for conducting an inquiry or investigation into decisions or recommendations made by public servants in the discharge of their official functions. The court’s direction therefore places the next step in the case on the completion of that approval process, rather than permitting the investigation to continue in its existing form.
The immediate effect of the order is that the FIR and investigation challenged in the petitions have been set aside. At the same time, the court’s clarification means that the allegations themselves have not been judicially declared false or finally resolved. Any renewed action would have to follow the statutory procedure specified by the bench.
The order also highlights the procedural safeguards that apply when allegations concern decisions taken by public officials in the course of municipal work. For city corporations, such cases typically involve multiple layers of responsibility, including administrative approvals, engineering supervision and financial processing. The supplied report, however, does not establish which specific decisions or officials were responsible for the alleged misuse.
The matter will now depend on whether the competent authority grants the required approval and whether the investigating agency takes further steps in accordance with the court’s directions. Prajavani’s report does not specify a deadline for the approval or identify any subsequent hearing date.
