SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 616

2011 (5) ALT 1 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, C.J. and VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
P. Shankar Rao
v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries Department and others
Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011
Decided on : 10-08-2011.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. N. Subba Reddy, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae in Taken up W.P. No.794 of 2011.
Mr. D. Srinivas, Counsel for petitioners in W.P. No.6604 of 2011.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.52 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. Sushed Kumar, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.6 in W.P. 6604 of 2011. Mr. C. Kodanda Ram, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.8 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. S. Ravi, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.9 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. S. Sriram, Counsel for Respondent No.12 and Respondent No.37 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. S.R. Ashok, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.15 to 19 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.20 to 25 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.26, 33, 34 and 36 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. K. Srnivas Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.32 in W.P. 794 of 2011.
Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.42 in W.P. 794 of 2011 and for Respondent No.7 in W.P. 6929 of 2011.
Standing Counsel for Income-tax Dept. for Respondent No.5 in W.P. 6604 of 2011.
Counsel for Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Respondent No.3 in W.P. 6979 of 2011.

Headnote:A) Constitution of India, Article 226:- A letter written by the ruling party MLA, Shankar Rao complaining against Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy on the ground that he had flouted several non-existing companies into which contributions were made by beneficiaries of various State Government schemes and SEZs, irrigation contracts, relaxation/permission for real estate ventures, mines, etc. and the money so paid is corrupt money attracting Sec.3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that investigation by Income-tax Authorities with respect to assessment orders of M/s. Jagathi Publication for the year 2008-09 showed huge unexplained cash credit and that R-52 is directly or indirectly connected with some of the companies showing phenomenal growth. Held there is a prima facie case in these allegation for making an investigation into these allegations and in spite of it , CBI had not made any enquiry into these allegations without justification and hence made a direction to enquiry into those allegations.

       B) Constitution of India, Article 226 :- Just because an MLA of a ruling party had written a letter with regard to some allegations of corruption cannot be thrown merely because it is written by politician. In the present case the writer of the letter was in fact allowed to participate in the proceedings and an amicus curie was appointed to assist the court.

       C) Constitution of India, Article 226 :- In the writ petition which was taken up case with regard to illegalities alleged in distribution of the largesses by the Government to favour particular person, failure of the Government in any way does not impair the jurisdiction of the court and the court can proceed on the basis of the material placed before him.

       D) Constitution of India, Article 226 :- In the taken up case against Shri Jaganmohan Reddy having come to the conclusion independently of the existence of the prima facie case for a full fledged enquiry without looking into the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the CBI, final enquiry was ordered and held the contents of preliminary enquiry report was held to prejudice the reputation of the respondent as per his own averment, it was held that the preliminary enquiry report shall remain in the sealed cover.

ORDER

Nisar Ahmad Kakru

Writ Petition No.794 of 2011

A Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Secunderabad Cantonment (SC) Constituency, Andhra Pradesh, alleging misappropriation of public property against Late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and beneficiaries thereof through transfer, lease, licenses grants etc., sought the indulgence of the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh for registration of a crime which evoked the response of the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court on 22-11-2010, directing the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to register the letter as a "Taken-up case" and was numbered as Writ Petition No.29358 of 2010.

2. During pendency of the above said "Taken-up Writ Petition No.29358 of 2010", another letter was filed before the Registrar (Judicial) by the same MLA for taking on record the documents accompanying therewith. The letter along with annexures was posted by the Registrar (Judicial) before the 5th Division Bench, being seized of "Taken-up Writ Petition No.29358 of 2010" and the Division Bench passed the following order:

"The scope of this Taken-up case and the scope of the relief sought to be taken in this present letter dated ..11.2010 is distinct and different on separate cause of actions requiring to implead various corporations and companies said to have been floated by him as annexed in Annexures-1 to 3. We are therefore of the opinion that this letter requires to be placed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for taking appropriate action. The Registry is directed to place this letter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for taking appropriate action".

3. Pursuant to the above direction of the Division Bench, orders were sought by the Registrar (Judicial) from the Chief Justice, who directed its posting as per roster. Accordingly, it was registered as "Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011". There are two more Writ Petitions No.6604 and 6979 of 2011 claiming similar relief almost on similar assertions, and we propose to dispose of all the three together by this common judgment.

4. Proceeding in that direction, we would like to begin with "Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011", wherein it is averred that Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy extended huge benefits in the shape of allotment of lands, mineral rights, licences, SEZs rights to develop ports all along the Eastern coast forming part of Eastern Andhra Pradesh apart from permission for star hotels and complexes in and around Hyderabad and other major cities in Andhra Pradesh. It is also averred that the corporates and individuals, who were benefited from these official favours were in turn made to invest kickback amounts into several individual and corporate businesses of the then Chief Minister's son Sri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, 52nd Respondent herein. It is also alleged that on account of the aforesaid Quid Pro Quo arrangement, the income of respondent No.52 rose from Rs.11 lakhs in 2004 to 43,000 Crores by the time of his father's demise.

5. In the letter and the additional material, the petitioner furnishes information as to the manner in which thousands of crores of kickbacks were paid to the family of the then Chief Minister. In substance, it is averred that respondent No.52 and his family defrauded the public exchequer under the clout of the then Chief Minister and managed transfer of public properties and permissions, leases and licenses favouring various companies at throw-away prices in lieu of thousands of crores of kickbacks, paid by the individuals and corporates to respondent No.52 which was routed through the investments made in his (respondent No.52) companies and businesses, and it is in furtherance of the said purpose that investments in power companies, print and television media and other businesses of the said respondent (No.52) were made and the value of the shares in such companies grew at a premium rate of over 100 times apparently over and above the value of the share. It is also averred that the bene

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top