A significant controversy has emerged surrounding IAS officer Dr. Nagarjuna B. Gowda, currently the CEO of Khandwa District Panchayat, over a drastic reduction in a mining fine during his previous role as Additional District Magistrate (ADM) in Harda. RTI activist Anand Jat brought the issue to light, alleging that Dr. Gowda reduced a potential Rs 51 crore penalty for illegal mining to a mere Rs 4,032. This decision has ignited public debate and criticism online.
In response, the District Magistrate of Harda, Siddharth Jain, stated that initial notices are issued to seek explanations and affirmed that Dr. Gowda followed all legal procedures. “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 explained.
To date, neither the activist nor any other party has presented evidence or filed an appeal against the revised order. Dr. Gowda, a 2019-batch officer trained as a medical doctor, is also known for his active social media presence and motivational talks for civil service aspirants. He is married to fellow 2019-batch IAS officer Srushti Jayant Deshmukh.
The case originated from an alleged illegal excavation of approximately 3.11 lakh cubic meters of gravel by Path India Company for the Indore–Betul National Highway project. A previous ADM had proposed a Rs 51.67 crore fine. However, after Dr. Gowda took charge, a reassessment concluded only 2,688 cubic meters were excavated, leading to the reduced penalty. It’s important to note the initial Rs 51 crore was a notice, not a final order, necessitating a proper hearing.
RTI activist Anand Jat claimed the reduction was unjustified, alleging that local evidence was overlooked. He demanded a review, citing a need for greater transparency. Reports indicate the activist himself faces multiple criminal cases for alleged blackmail and extortion.
Dr. Gowda refuted the allegations, asserting his decision was based on legal procedure and evidence. He explained that the initial fine notice lacked procedural strength and substantial proof of illegal mining. He also highlighted that no appeals were filed against his order in the two years following its issuance, reinforcing its legal standing.