A Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against a public official for alleged ethical breaches or political impropriety in the absence of a specific statutory violation or prima facie evidence of corrupt acts, as the Court will not adjudicate on matters of political morality or non-statutory codes of conduct.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide inaction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has been favorable to Respondent No. 5 and the clear governmental directives, and motivated by extraneous considerations to benefit other individuals, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide, discriminatory, and violative of Constitution of India, and Schedule -III of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and Code of Conduct for ministers (both union and state) and Consequently direct the respondents

a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate a fair, impartial, and time-bound preliminary inquiry and/or criminal investigation into the serious allegations of misconduct, conflict of interest, and abuse of public office and state resources by Respondent No. 5, as detailed in the representation dated 25.07.2025 submitted by the Petitioner,

b. Issue directions to Respondent No. 3 (CBI) to initiate a detailed, time- bound, and impartial investigation into the complaint dated July 25, 2025, with specific focus on the conflict of interest, misuse of office, and abuse of government machinery by Respondent No. 5.

c. Issue directions to Respondent No. 3 (CBI) to examine whether the conduct of Respondent No. 5 amounts to criminal misconduct under Sections 7, 11, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

d. Issue directions to Respondent No. I to examine the legality, propriety, and procedural justification for allowing extraordinary ticket pricing for the film Hari Kara Veera Mallu and whether such decisions were influenced by the official position of Respondent No. 4. 5

e. Direct an independent inquiry into the use of public funds, personnel, and resources, including police and district administration machinery, in promoting or facilitating commercial events connected to Respondent No. 5.

f. To Declare the continued engagement of Respondent No. 5 in commercial film and entertainment activities, while holding the constitutional office of Deputy Chief Minister and Minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as unconstitutional, unethical, and in violation of the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the principles of public accountability, and the doctrine of conflict of interest.

g. Direct appropriate disciplinary and/or penal action against any government official found complicit in extending state resources for private gain in violation of established rules.”

2. Heard Sri B.Balaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri S.Syam Sundar Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a former Senior Civil Servant and the Founder President of a duly registered political party, and has approached this Court purely in the public interest after exhausting all the available institutional remedies. It is argued that, despite a detailed and comprehensive written complaint dated 25.07.2025, having been submitted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, setting out specific instances of misconduct, conflict of interest, and misuse of public machinery by Re