IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Sri Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana., rep. by Special PP of CBI, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.2345 of 2017
Decided On : 04-01-2018
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 – 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 15 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conspiracy – Demand of illegal gratification – Bribe – sanction of Government – Cognizance of offence – When can be taken – Held, It is settled law that the policy decisions of the State cannot be opposed by the Secretaries to the Government working in the State and they can at best only express their demur against the decisions of the Council of Ministers. Therefore the act of the CBI which culminated in the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed, so also the cognizance order of the learned Special Judge – Criminal petition allowed
The petitioner-Sri LV Subrahmanyam, Special Chief Secretary working under the State of Andhra Pradesh, is in the array of several accused as A-11 in the final report, which is outcome of the crime in R.C.No.18(A)/2011, CBI Hyderabad, registered and investigated based on the directions given on 10.08.2011, in the public interest litigation (W.P.No 29358 of 2010) filed by one Sri P. Shankar Rao against State of Andhra Pradesh and others for CBI enquiry, for the offences punishable under 120-B IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, (for short, ‘the Act’), with allegations of huge extent of lands held by A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) transferred to private parties and the State Government was put to loss and suspecting money laundering and in ordering CBI enquiry against M/s Emaar properties, Public Joint Stock Company (PJSC), Dubai, has involved in this public private partnership project, by relied upon some enquiry by the Vigilance Department of the State Government. (Undisputedly there is nothing in the vigilance report specifically against the petitioner-Sri LV Subrahmanyam).
2. The police final report is running about 320 pages against several accused and of which so far as petitioner concerned it speaks that:
1. He (Sri LV Subrahmanyam-for short LVS) was Vice Chairman and Managing Director (VC & MD), APIIC from September, 2003 to May, 2005. During said period the modalities and implementation structure of the integrated project were finalized by the Government of AP (GoAP) on the recommendations of APIIC,
2. LVS received the memorandum and articles of association in respect of the SPVs i.e., 1.M/s. EHTPL, 2.M/s. BHLPL and 3.M/s.CCCPL. However, LVS in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy did not ensure that the memorandum and articles of association of the JVCos were suitably amended in consonance with the recitals of collaboration agreement and share holders agreement.
3. The Senior Manager Projects APIIC had recommended that the price of the land to be conveyed to SPV on free hold basis by making an upward revision from Rs.29,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- per acre in view of the developments taken place resulting in appreciation of the land cost. However, LVS in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy made a recommendation to the GoAP favourable to M/s. Emaar Properties, PJSC, Dubai (A.2) to the effect of not enhancing the cost of the land per acre but to retain the same at Rs.29,00,000/- assigning the reason that the project would suffer double jeopardy of the increased project cost and corresponding reduction in the Govt. equity, which may cast an additional debt burden on APIIC. LVS himself admittedly accepted the price of Rs.35,00,000/- per acre fixed by the price fixation committee of APIIC in respect of the land at Manikonda Jagir (where the integrated project is located) for the year 2004, which was valid till 31.03.2005, by making an endorsement to that effect in the file,
4. LVS in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy agreed to the request of the developer and recommended lease rentals as 2% of gross annual revenues in respect of 235 acres of lease land for development of golf course contrary to the approval given by GoAP for a lease rentals at 2% for the initial period of 33 years and 3% for the further period of 33 years, thereby divested APIIC of its legitimate share in the lease rentals for the remaining period of 33 years at 3%,
5. The convention centre and business hotel were also established on leased land of 15 acres at Izzatnagar as in the case of golf course. LVS in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy did not recommend enhancement of lease rentals from 2% to 3% after expiry of lease period of 33 years on par with the golf course,
6. LVS was privy to the fact that the villa plots were being sold by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad (A.6) and S
A.P.Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), Vijayawada V. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Ajay Agarwal vs Union Of India
Anil Kumar and others Vs. M.K. Ayyappa and another
Baliya alias Bal Kishan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal V. State of Maharashtra
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. T.K. Raju
Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
CBI v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao
Chandra Deo Singh V. Prokash Chandra Bose@ Chabi Bose
Chandran Ratnaswami V. K.C.Palanisamy
Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa
Common Cause Vs. Union of India
Dinesh Dutt Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others
Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Others
Jawarlal Darda V. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal Vs. State of T.N.
Kalicharan Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)
Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.
Lalu Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Louis Peter Surin v. State of Jharkhand
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd.
Manoharlal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur
Merla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Chowdary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh and Anr. v. C.B.I. through its Director
Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji
Nawabganj Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India
P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim
P. Sirajuddin Etc. Vs. State of Madras
P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu V. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy
Padamsen Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and Others
Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. The State of Punjab and others
Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar
Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand
Public Interest Litigation and Another v. Union of India and Another
R.Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Another
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others
Rishipal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rukmini Narvekar vs Vijay Sataredkar
S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Others
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar V. State of Mharashtra
South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs State of M.P.
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram
State of Bihar Vs. Rajmangal Ram
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh
State of H.P. Vs Kishan Lal Pardhan
State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav
State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others
State of Karnataka Vs. V.L. Munniswamy
State of M.P vs Sheetla Sahai & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.V.Narasimhan
State of Maharashtra and Others v. Som Nath Thapa and Others [(1996) 4 SCC 659
State of Orissa Vs Devenranath Pathi
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others
State, Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam V/s. Surva Sankaram Karri
Subramanium Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another
Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another
Vadilal Panchal V. Dattatraya Dulaji Gha Digaonkar
Varala Bharath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.