Kanumuri Raghu Ramakrishna Raju vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2717 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
         HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                 WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.80 of 2022
                       (Proceedings through Physical Mode)

Kanumuri Raghu Ramakrishna Raju,
S/o. Sri K.V.S. Suryanarayana Raju,
aged about 59 years, Member of Parliament,
458/1, Block-4, Ai Bhimavaram,
Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh, currently residing at
Plot No.18 New MP Villas, New Bungalows,
North Avenue, Raisina Hills, New Delhi 110001, India
Mobile: 900092222, Aadhaar No.5124 8007 7921,
A/c.38485294597, State Bank of India, Parliament
House Branch, New Delhi,
PAN No ALTPK9688G                                                ... Petitioner

                                    Versus

Union of India, Secretary to Government of
India, Department of Economic Affairs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110001, rep. by its Secretary (EA),
and others                                                    ... Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner               :      Mr. Ambati Sudhakara Rao

Counsel for respondents 1 to 3          :       Mr.N.Harinath, ASG
Counsel for respondents 7 to 14         :       The Advocate General

                                  ORDER

Dt: 24.06.2022

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition (Public Interest

Litigation) praying to declare:

a) Act No.31 of 2021, namely Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of

Trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Liquor) (Amendment)

Act, 2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 266 and 293 of

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

the Constitution of India and contrary to Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C

of Act No.15 of 1993 and Sections 23, 23-A and 23-B of Act 17/1968,

i.e. A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and consequently to set aside the same;

b) Act No.9 of 2022, namely Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of

Trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Liquor) (Amendment)

Act 2022, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 266 and 293 of

the Constitution of India and contrary to Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C

of Act No.15 of 1993 and Sections 23, 23-A and 23-B of Act 17/1968,

i.e. A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and consequently to set aside the same;

c) the earnings of the 14th respondent Corporation as the

earnings of Government of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of Sections 4-A,

4-B and 4-C of the Act 15 of 1993, i.e. Andhra Pradesh (Regulation

of Trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor) Act, 1993 and Sections 23,

23-A and 23-B of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and forms part of;

d) the attempts of the 14th respondent Corporation to borrow

loans by mortgaging the Special Margin money from any nationalized

or commercial bank, financial institution or any other entity as illegal

and against the provisions of Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C of Act No.15

of 1993 and Sections 23, 23-A and 23-B of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968

and violative of Article 293(3) of the Constitution of India, in the

interest of public good and in the interest of justice and pass such

other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 14th

respondent, i.e. A.P. State Beverages Corporation Ltd., has been granted

exclusive rights and privileges to manage the wholesale as well as the retail

trade of alcohol by invoking Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of

Trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Liquor) Act, 1993 (in short,

'Act No.15 of 1993'). Vide Section 4-A of Act No.15 of 1993, the

Government was entitled to specify the trade margin, privilege fee or any

other levy, by whatever name called, to be collected by the Andhra

Pradesh Beverages Corporation from the holders of licences. Under

Section 4-B of Act No.15 of 1993, the amount realised under Section 4-A

being the income of the Government, shall be remitted by the Corporation

to the Government in the manner specified by the Government. Similarly,

under Section 4-C of Act No.15 of 1993, all amounts paid by the

Corporation from 21.07.1993 to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

or the Government as privilege fee or special privilege fee or any fee or

cess, by whatever name called, in consideration of the privilege conferred

on the Corporation, as per the provisions of Sections 23(1), 23-A and 23-B

of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (in short, 'the 1968 Act'), shall be

deemed to be and always deemed to have been the income of the

Government and due payment for the relevant years in terms of Section

4-B of Act No.15 of 1993.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that the Corporation, being an

instrumentality of the State and having been granted exclusive privilege to

run liquor shops in the State of Andhra Pradesh as also for

importing/exporting and carrying out wholesale trade and distribution in

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

Indian liquor, foreign liquor, wine and beer, discharges governmental

function. Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, it is provided that

no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, and further,

under Article 266, no money out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the

Consolidated Fund of a State shall be appropriated except in accordance

with law and for the purposes and in the manner provided in the

Constitution. The 14th respondent-Corporation has no independent income

except the mandate for which it is constituted and its income is deemed to

be the income of the Government; therefore, the impugned amendment

conferring statutory status on the Corporation to implement welfare

schemes of the Government by utilizing its income, is contrary to the

statutory provisions and for the said purpose, the Corporation has been

authorised to borrow huge amount of money from banks/banks

consortium.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Andhra

Pradesh does not have any scope of borrowing money from the Reserve

Bank of India, as it has already borrowed huge amounts and the impugned

amendment entitling the Corporation to borrow money for implementing

the welfare schemes of the Government, is an act in violation of the

Constitutional provisions as also various provisions of the 1968 Act and Act

No.15 of 1993. The Corporation, which does not have any income as the

entire income is that of the State Government, ought not to have been

authorized to borrow amount from banks or financial institutions.

5. It is further argued that the State Government has established a

Corporation called A.P. State Development Corporation under the

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

Companies Act, 2013, which has borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000 crores

from SBI Capital consortium for implementation of the State Government

direct money transfer freebie schemes. The SBI Capital consortium

allowed the borrowing in favour of A.P. State Development Corporation

knowing fully well that it does not have any business operation/activities;

therefore, to overcome the legal hurdle, the impugned amendment has

been made by conferring statutory backing in favour of A.P. State

Beverages Corporation Ltd. to enable it to borrow money for carrying out

the welfare schemes of the State Government. This amounts to financial

impropriety and undermining the provisions of the Constitution of India,

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and Andhra Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility

and Budget Management Act, 2005, which shall occasion a major financial

threat to the people of the State in the days to come.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and

perused the material on record.

7. The primary object of the writ petition appears to be to prevent

A.P. State Beverages Corporation Ltd., from borrowing money from

banks/financial institutions for carrying out welfare schemes of the State

Government. The object itself, prima facie, seems to be contrary to public

interest inasmuch as if the State Government or the Corporation is

prevented from borrowing money, it will affect implementation of various

welfare schemes of the State Government. Even otherwise, Courts should

be very slow in interfering in matters having adverse financial implications

on the Government. Such matters should be left to be managed by the

Government because Courts are neither economists nor financial experts.

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

Except making a statement that if the 14th respondent-Corporation is

allowed to borrow money, it shall become a major financial threat to the

people of the State, no other particulars have been given as to how

borrowing money will become a major financial threat to the people of the

State.

8. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to a few judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the issue regarding maintainability of

public interest litigations has been considered.

9. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and others 1 ,

petitioner therein questioned allocation of funds by the Central Government

to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that such grant of funds to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for its security

or otherwise is within the exclusive domain of the Government and in a

matter like this, a public interest litigation does not deserve to be

entertained and, further, that it is not a judicially manageable proceeding

and the Court should refrain from entering into the said area.

10. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and

others 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that public interest

litigation is a product of realisation of constitutional obligation of the court.

It was further observed that while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial

review, it realised that a very large section of the society because of

extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy has been denied

justice from times immemorial and in fact they have no access to justice.

(2016) 13 SCC 710

(2010) 3 SCC 402

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

Therefore, predominantly, to provide access to justice to the poor,

deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalised sections of the

society, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has initiated, encouraged and propelled

the concept of public interest litigation, which is an upshot and product of

the Court's deep and intense urge to fulfil its bounden duty and

constitutional obligation. It was also observed that High Courts exercise

same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the rule of

locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of "aggrieved person"

was broadened to provide access to justice to a very large section of the

society which was otherwise not getting any benefit from the judicial

system.

11. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

referring to Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v.

Union of India 3 , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 4 ,

Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India5 and Ramsharan

Autyanuprasi v. Union of India6, observed thus in paragraphs 36 and

75:

"36. Public interest litigation is not in the nature of

adversarial litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity

to the Government and its officers to make basic human

rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of

the community and to assure them social and economic

(1981) 1 SCC 246

(1984) 3 SCC 161

(1981) 1 SCC 568

1989 Supp (1) SCC 251

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The

Government and its officers must welcome public interest

litigation because it would provide them an occasion to

examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting

their social and economic entitlements or whether they are

continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at

the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community

and whether social and economic justice has become a

meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a

teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case

the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be

true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation

root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker

sections their rights and entitlements."

"75. We would not like to overburden the judgment by

multiplying these cases, but a brief resume of these cases

demonstrates that in order to preserve and protect the

fundamental rights of marginalised, deprived and poor

sections of the society, the courts relaxed the traditional rule

of locus standi and broadened the definition of aggrieved

persons and gave directions and orders. We would like to

term cases of this period where the Court relaxed the rule of

locus standi as the first phase of the public interest litigation.

The Supreme Court and the High Courts earned great

respect and acquired great credibility in the eyes of public

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

because of their innovative efforts to protect and preserve

the fundamental rights of people belonging to the poor and

marginalised sections of the society."

12. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has discussed phase two of evolution of public interest litigation and in

various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to

preserve and protect ecology and environment. Similarly, in phase three

of evolution of public interest litigation, probity in governance has been

discussed. In phase three, the Hon'ble Supreme Court entertained public

interest litigations relating to cases where investigating agencies failed to

perform their legal obligation or where large scale defalcation of public

funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of crores of rupees

has taken place. The above issues were discussed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India 7 , Rajiv Ranjan

Singh 'Lalan' (VIII) v. Union of India 8 and Centre for Public

Interest Litigation v. Union of India9.

13. Considering the present petition on the anvil of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, it is to

be noted that the petitioner has neither espoused the cause of poor,

downtrodden or marginalised sections of society nor he is alleging

defalcation of public money, rampant corruption or fraudulent activities of

the Government. The petitioner has challenged Act No.31 of 2021, namely

Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor,

(1998) 1 SCC 226

(2006) 6 SCC 613

(2003) 7 SCC 532

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.80 of 2022

Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Act, 2021, only on the ground of violation of

constitutional provisions, which has nothing to do with welfare of poor,

marginalised or oppressed section of society. It is well settled that writ

court does not entertain a petition for a mere academic purpose and it

should refrain from considering abstract legal principles in public interest

litigations, more so when they concern Government's financial affairs.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to entertain

this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation), which deserves to be, and is

accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                       D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
MRR