The controversy began when RTI activist Anand Jat accused Dr. Nagarjuna B. Gowda of reducing a massive mining penalty levied against Path India Company, which was reportedly engaged in unauthorized excavation for the Indore–Betul National Highway project.
According to documents shared by the activist, the company allegedly excavated 3.11 lakh cubic meters of murrum soil in Harda district’s Andherikheda village without valid permits. A notice imposing a penalty of ₹51.67 crore was issued by the then-ADM Praveen Phoolpagar.
However, after Phoolpagar’s transfer, Dr. Gowda took charge as ADM — and the fine was drastically revised. Official records later assessed the actual excavation volume at just 2,688 cubic meters, leading to a penalty reduction to ₹4,032.
The reduction, described by Jat as “unprecedented and suspicious,” triggered widespread outrage. On social media, users questioned how a ₹51 crore fine could be legally minimized to such a nominal amount without review.
Who Is IAS Nagarjuna B. Gowda?
A 2019-batch IAS officer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, Dr. Gowda is among the most recognizable faces of India’s young civil service class. A medical doctor-turned-bureaucrat, he is married to fellow IAS officer Srushti Deshmukh, and the couple enjoys a large following among UPSC aspirants.
Known for his motivational talks, transparency campaigns, and social media presence, Dr. Gowda has often spoken publicly about ethics and integrity in administration. His popularity among youth, however, has amplified scrutiny — turning this case into a lightning rod for debates about the accountability of public officials.
In online forums frequented by UPSC aspirants, the case has divided opinion: while some argue that Dr. Gowda is being unfairly targeted, others believe the allegations warrant an independent inquiry.
The Bureaucratic Backstory: From Fine to Fallout
The mining dispute dates back several years. The initial penalty of ₹51 crore was based on an estimate of large-scale illegal excavation during roadwork on the Indore–Betul corridor.
Following the administrative reshuffle, Dr. Gowda reportedly re-evaluated the case after the company’s representation, citing discrepancies in the panchanama and the absence of photographic or geospatial proof. The revised official survey reduced the excavation figure — and thus, the fine.
RTI activist Anand Jat challenged this decision, alleging it was a “favor” to the contractor and hinting at a potential “deal” behind the leniency. “Despite villagers claiming visible large-scale mining, no video or drone evidence was collected,” Jat said, calling the reduction “administrative overreach disguised as due process.”
He also claimed the district administration ignored citizen complaints, failing to revisit the order even after the issue became public.
Gowda’s Response: ‘No Evidence, Everything Legal’
In an interview with a national media outlet, Dr. Gowda strongly denied all allegations. He emphasized that the initial ₹51 crore figure was never finalized as a penalty but merely a notice for hearing, and that the final decision was based on procedural integrity.
“The fine was not imposed by the previous ADM but only a notice was issued. The Tehsildar’s report was weak, and there was no concrete proof of mining. The final order was passed before I took charge, and I acted in accordance with records,” he clarified.
He further pointed out that no appeals were filed against the order in the two years following his decision, indicating its procedural validity.
Dr. Gowda added, “Every action was transparent and legally sound. There is a tendency to sensationalize figures without understanding how administrative assessments work.”
Public Reaction and the Road Ahead
The controversy has sparked widespread debate on bureaucratic discretion, transparency, and accountability. Some users defended the officer as “a victim of bureaucratic politics,” while others demanded a judicial or CAG-led review of the mining records. As of now, no official inquiry has been announced, though public pressure is growing for the state government to revisit the case.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gowda maintains that all decisions were made “within the four corners of law” and says he is ready to cooperate with any formal review.
The case remains a test not just of one officer’s conduct but of how India’s administrative machinery navigates the tension between due process and public perception in an era where governance unfolds under the glare of social media.
