Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Rakesh Kumar and D. Ramesh, JJ.
The Special Officer, Mission of A.P. and Ors.- Appellant
Vs.
Thota Suresh Babu and Ors. - Respondent
I.A. Sr. No. 37122 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL) No. 127 of 2020, WP Nos. 8966, 9135, 18794 of 2020, WP (PIL) Nos. 132, 135, 136, 137, 145 and 192 of 2020
Decided On: 13-12-2020
For the Respondents:Narra Srinivasa Rao, Advocate, Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy and K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel
Headnote:
[CATEGORY] [SUB-CATEGORY]
Fact of the Case:
The present writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department in issuing Notice Inviting Offer (NIO) to Outright Sale of land Parcels/Land Assets on behalf of Mission Build AP, Government of Andhra Pradesh, available at Guntur and Visakhapatnam Districts of Andhra Pradesh "as is where is" basis through E-auction vide NIO No. NBCC/GM-AP/AP LM-1/2020/1 calling for applications as highly illegal, arbitrary, and consequently made a prayer to set aside NIO No. NBCC/GM-AP/AP LM-1/2020/1.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the action of the State by way of filing the aforesaid petition, with untrue and false allegations amounts to interference in the discharge of judicial functions and as such the same is contemptuous. Accordingly, the Court proposed to call for an explanation from the petitioner/respondent No. 5 as to why he may not be proceeded with for his contemptuous act and contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
Issues: Whether the action of the State by way of filing the aforesaid petition, with untrue and false allegations amounts to interference in the discharge of judicial functions and as such the same is contemptuous.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court observed that the petitioner/respondent No. 5, on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has made a false statement, which is not supported by either on the record of the docket or any documents, which have been brought on record in the present interlocutory application, and as such, it amounts to commission of offence of perjury and such act is liable to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Moreover, the action of the State, by way of filing the aforesaid petition, with untrue and false allegations amounts to interference in the discharge of judicial functions and as such the same is contemptuous.
Final Decision: The Court directed the petitioner/respondent No. 5 to file his show-cause within a period of six (6) weeks from today and the Registry was directed to list this matter in the second week of February, 2021. The Court also directed the Registrar General to file a complaint for initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner/respondent No. 5 in the Court of concerned judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.
ORDER :
Rakesh Kumar, J.
Authored By : Rakesh Kumar, D. Ramesh
1. W.P. No. 127 of 2020 was filed as Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department in issuing Notice Inviting Offer (NIO) to Outright Sale of land Parcels/Land Assets on behalf of Mission Build AP, Government of Andhra Pradesh, available at Guntur and Visakhapatnam Districts of Andhra Pradesh "as is where is" basis through E-auction vide NIO No. NBCC/GM-AP/AP LM-1/2020/1 calling for applications as highly illegal, arbitrary, and consequently made a prayer to set aside NIO No. NBCC/GM-AP/AP LM-1/2020/1.
2. The present writ petition was firstly taken up by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai and Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan and a Bench of this Court while granting time for filing counter affidavit, passed an interim order restraining finalization of the bidding process. The said writ petition was thereafter taken up on number of dates and the interim order was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, other similar writ petitions were filed questioning the act of the State regarding selling/transferring of the Government land through auction; and, as such, those cases were tagged together, by order, dated 18.09.2020. The aforesaid matter was taken up on 11.12.2020 and the docket shows that it was directed to be listed on 17.12.2020. Thereafter, on 16.12.2020, Sri Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General informed that in the aforesaid batch cases, earlier, he had filed a petition for recusal of one of the Members of the Bench (Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) from the case. He informed that earlier office had returned the said petition with some objection and after correcting the same, he has again re-presented the same before the Registry. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to place the said petition on 21.12.2020. On 21.12.2020, I (Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) was sitting with Hon'ble Ms. Justice J. Uma Devi. On the date, on perusal of the said interlocutory application, i.e., IASR No. 37122 of 2020, we noticed that 'In paragraph No. 4 of the petition, it was indicated that on 11.12.2020 while I (Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) was sitting with my learned brother (Hon'ble Sri Justice D. Ramesh), had made some oral observation. On 21.12.2020, it was recorded "At the moment, we are not certifying regarding such observation but, only for examining such prayer, direction has been given to entertain this interlocutory application. Put up this case on 28.12.2020, if I am sitting with Hon'ble Sri Justice D. Ramesh, subject to approval by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty that if he wants to file any response to this interlocutory application, it may be filed by 23.12.2020."
3. In view of order, dated 21.12.2020, WP (PIL) 127 of 2020 and other connected writ petitions were taken up. On the date, i.e., 28.12.2020, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the present petition, i.e., IASR 37122 of 2020 may be treated as petition in other connected writ petitions. This Court, accordingly, directed that the said interlocutory application shall be treated as petition filed in all the aforesaid writ petitions. The order, dated 28.12.2020, is quoted herein below:
"Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present petition, which is I.A.S.R. No. 37122 of 2020, may be treated as petition in other connected writ petitions. Accordingly, this interlocutory application shall be treated as petition filed in all the aforesaid writ petitions.
In the present petition, in sum and substance, a prayer has been made for recusal of one of the Member of this Bench (Rake
