Bengaluru: The high court directed the chief secretary of the state to grant the necessary approval sought by petitioner NR Ravinchandre Gowda under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute senior IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in connection with the eco-friendly bags procurement case. Sindhuri was deputy commissioner of Mysuru and also MD of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (KHDC) at the relevant time.Justice M Nagaprasanna, in his order, said: “Ordinarily, this court would have deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the govt for a fresh consideration. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, such a course is both unnecessary and unwarranted. The coordinate bench had already issued a clear mandate to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Yet, the govt, instead of undertaking a meaningful re-evaluation, chose to reiterate its earlier position, albeit with a little justification. In the circumstances, a further remand would serve no fruitful purpose and would only prolong the process to the detriment of justice.”The petitioner-complainant, a lawyer and social activist from Mysuru city, alleged that a Rs 7.5-crore loss was caused to the state govt in the purchase of eco-friendly bags in 2021 for various local bodies in Mysuru district as part of a solid waste management project by paying Rs 52 per bag from KHDC against Rs 13, the prevailing market rate. He filed a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) seeking action against Sindhuri.On Sept 19, 2022, state govt declined permission under Section 17A of the PC Act. Gowda challenged it in the high court, and on Feb 20, 2025, the court directed govt to consider the request afresh.Thereafter, on May 26, 2025, govt again declined approval, citing the officer in question, Rohini Sindhuri, was exonerated in the departmental inquiry proceedings, forcing Gowda to approach the high court again.After perusing the materials on record and several Supreme Court judgments, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that “the spectre of corruption once raised, on the basis of material placed on record, cannot be summarily extinguished at the threshold. It must be allowed to unfold through the process of investigation, which alone can ascertain the truth,” the judge added.“Departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct standards of proof and objectives. The closure of one does not ipso facto extinguish the other,” the judge observed, while allowing the petition.
