A storm of controversy has gathered around IAS officer Dr. Nagarjuna B. Gowda, the CEO of Khandwa District Panchayat, concerning a significant reduction in a mining penalty during his previous role as ADM in Harda. RTI activist Anand Jat has alleged that Dr. Gowda slashed a potential Rs 51 crore fine for illegal mining down to just Rs 4,032.
Defending the officer, Harda’s Collector and District Magistrate, Siddharth Jain, has clarified that the process undertaken was in line with legal requirements. He emphasized that the initial notices serve to elicit responses and that Dr. Gowda’s final order was well-reasoned and legally sound. “The concerned presiding officer (IAS Gowda) has followed the due process of law and gave a proper speaking order which is in the public domain for everyone to see. If anyone is not satisfied, they can appeal against the verdict. This is a judicial process,” Jain stated, refuting any suggestion of malpractice.
No appeals have been filed against the revised penalty, and the activist has yet to present concrete evidence. Dr. Gowda, a 2019-batch officer, is also a medical doctor by profession, known for inspiring civil service aspirants and maintaining an active online presence. He is married to IAS officer Srushti Jayant Deshmukh.
The case involves allegations of illegal gravel extraction by Path India Company during the construction of the Indore–Betul National Highway. While a previous notice proposed a Rs 51.67 crore fine, Dr. Gowda’s review concluded that the actual excavated volume was significantly less, leading to the drastically reduced fine. The initial Rs 51 crore figure was presented as a notice, not a conclusive order.
RTI activist Anand Jat has publicly questioned the decision, claiming that local evidence was disregarded and advocating for greater accountability. He has called for a review of the ruling. Reports indicate that the activist himself is involved in legal cases.
Dr. Gowda has strongly refuted the claims of misconduct. He asserts that his decision was based on a thorough examination of evidence and legal statutes, noting deficiencies in the initial inquiry. He further pointed out that the absence of any appeals in the two years following his order validates the thoroughness and fairness of his judgment.