“COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999” = “Nexus of Chief Minister, Judicial-Layout, Lokayukta- Appointments”:- It is humbly submitted we got the answers for that Magic Wand from Lokayukta office on 26 Nov,2011 after paying Rs. 1668 for 834 pages of records. Few Magic Wands reproduced below in Boxes. But it is worthwhile to know as how Lokayuktas are selected, or how Judges are appointed, elevated, to recall & remember the Judgment passed by G.P. Shivaprakash while he officiating as Judge of Karnataka high court since 1990 to 1997 or so.
[b] Chief Minister Jagdeesh Shettar, as Leader of opposition he was first person to see the Frauds committed by 867 Judges way back in 2001-2002 produced by us. He intentionally, just before 2013 General Assembly Elections appointed Lokayukta Y.Bhaskar Rao & Subhash Adi who are illegal beneficiaries of Sites from Society. In same manner Yeddyurappa appointed S.B.Majige who had got site in Judicial Layout.
[c] Rather it has become Rule since 1995 , after ILR 1995 KAR 3139; Judges who are ready to say CM, MY MASTER to chief Minister shall alone be appointed as Lokayukta or any other such posts. To make such Charge one has to have records, Applicant submits.
[d] G.P. Shivaprakash delivered one Judgment in 1994 reported as ILR 1994 KAR 4115 which is in short quashed the Govt Order & got his share of Quid-Pro-Quo site No. 1420 within two months from delivering Judgment:-
|I . L . R . 1994 KAR 2115 . SHIVAPRAKASH . J
Karnataka State Judicial Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs State of Karnataka * [W.P. No. 18447 of 1994 dated 15th July 1994 ]:-
[i] There is no provision in the Bangalore Development Authority Act enjoining that each and every time a site has to be allotted in a private layout sanctioned by the BDA, the said site has to be released by the BDA. Obviously, because sites in private layouts are never in the clutches of BDA and the question of BDA “releasing” the sites does not arise. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the Circular, cannot be legally sustained. [ Para – 5]
[ii] The other requirement of production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also cannot be legally sustained since there is no provision of law requiring production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before a document presented Sub-Registrar. [ Para – 6]
[iii] The Circular not published in the Gazette in terms of provisions of Section 22A of the Registration [Karnataka Amendment] Act, 1976 is of no legal effect.. The Circular does not disclose any intelligible different and also does not reveal any public policy being involved in issuing the said Circular. On this ground also the Circular has to be struck down. [ Paras – 8 & 9 ].
 This Petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3000/-.