Government Of India, Rep.By The ... vs Smt.K.L.D.Nagasree,
2022 Latest Caselaw 661 AP

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                     MAIN CASE No.W.A.No.161 of 2007

                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.   DATE                                    ORDER                                     OFFICE
No.                                                                                      NOTE
4.  07.02.2022 CPK,J & Dr.KMR, J
                                        I.A.No.1 of 2022
                    Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior
              Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Harinath, learned
              Assistant     Solicitor      General    for   respondent     No.1and

Sri A. Chennakeshavulu, learned Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.

This petition is filed to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, (FAC) III Additional Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.

As seen from the record, originally W.P.No.2754 of 2006 came to be filed challenging the order of interception of the telephone of the petitioner. Vide an Order dated 11.12.2006, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the copies of intercepted messages pursuant be destroyed. Against the Order, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and another filed W.A.No.70 of 2007. The Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh while admitting the Writ Appeal, granting stay of the order of the learned Single Judge on 15.02.2007. While things stood thus, on 09.04.2009, the Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam seeking copies/statements to be supplied to the accused person under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and to proceed further with the matter. Accordingly, a Docket Order dated 09.04.2009 came to be passed posting of the said application to 28.04.2009.

Having regard to the above, the petitioner filed W.A.M.P.No.1104 of 2009 in W.A.No.70 of 2007 seeking

stay of the proceedings, as the order of the learned Single Judge will become infructuous, if trial goes on. Vide Order, dated 24.04.2009 the Division Bench passed an order of staying all further proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2006 pending disposal of the W.A.No.70 of 2007.

Since 2009, the order of stay is in force. While so, on 29.12.2021, learned Single for C.B.I. Cases posted the above C.C. for hearing. When an objection came to be raised as to the hearing of the matter, learned Special Judge passed an order holding that the order of the Division Bench is not in force in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC

299. Against the said order, the present I.A. came to be filed.

Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the only ground on which the trial Judge intend to proceed with the case is because the Writ Petitioner has not obtained any extension of stay granted on 24.04.2009. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that, if the trial Court is allowed to proceed with the matter, the order passed in his favour in Writ Petitioner and the stay order passed by Division Bench pursuant to an application made by the writ petitioner would become infructuous.

The same is opposed by Sri A. Chennakeshavulu, learned Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. contending that when the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court postulates seeking an extension of the order on merits, the petitioner cannot find fault with the said order. Sri A. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General would submit that the main Writ Appeal itself may be heard finally.

As seen from the record, a learned Single Judge of the concerned Court passed an order by going into the merits of the case and also having regard to Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules and Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and taking into consideration the

law laid down in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 568 wherein it was categorically held that telephone tapping is a serious allegation of an individual's privacy affecting the right to live, personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the authorities failed to follow the procedure contemplated in Sub Rule 9 under Rule 419-A, and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition. Though, initially, the Division Bench while observing that the issue raised in the main appeal is of great public interest stayed the order of learned Single Judge. However, an application came to be moved by the petitioner herein, pursuant to which the Division Bench granted stay of all proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2006 vide order dated 24.04.2009 and also ordered listing of the main appeal for hearing on 08.06.2009.

The issue involved in the present Writ Appeal requires adjudication at length and many legal issues are involved in this matter. The argument that the entire proceedings before the High Court would become infructuous, if the trial Court proceeds with the matter at this stage i.e., after 12 years of passing of interim order, cannot be brushed aside.

Accordingly, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2006 until further orders.

W.A.No.161 of 2007 Registry to post W.A.No.70 of 2007 along with the present appeal, for final hearing on 21.02.2022.

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J MS