Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ushodaya Enterprises Private ... vs The State Of Ap on 9 February, 2023
1
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
17 & 18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: W.P (PIL).No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023.
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
09.02.2023 (Through Physical Mode)
W.P.No.3041 of 2023
This order shall govern disposal of issues raised by Mr. Vikas
Singh and Mr. Devadutt Kamat, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Mayank Jain and Mr. Madhur Jain, learned counsel, on behalf
of Mr. M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.No.3041 of 2023, by filing a memo dated
08.02.2023.
Yesterday, the learned Advocate General made a mention at
10.30 a.m., that W.P.No.3041 of 2023 is posted before a single
Bench and on the same issue, W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020 is also
pending consideration before this Court, and therefore, both the
matters may be heard together.
On such mention being made, this Court directed both the
matters to be posted before this Court today. We also requested
the learned Advocate General to inform the learned single Bench
having roster to deal with W.P.No.3041 of 2023.
After some time, when the court proceedings were going on,
again mention was made before us by the petitioners' counsel
that the learned single Judge is not taking up the matter, to which
we expressed that since the matter is posted before the learned
single Bench, it is in the domain of the learned single Judge to
pass any order after hearing the parties. However, the learned
single Judge did not pass any order and simply directed the
2
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
matter to be posted today. Both the matters have now been listed
before us in terms of the order passed by us on mention slip,
which is always construed to be an order passed in open Court
and has the sanctity of judicial order.
In the memo filed on behalf of the petitioners, the relief
claimed in both the writ petitions are reproduced in tabular form
for facilitation of comparison to demonstrate that since the issues
involved in both the writ petitions are substantially different, both
the matters should not be heard together and W.P.No.3041 of
2023 should be posted for hearing before the Bench having
roster.
It is also argued that when the matter is cognizable by single
Judge, the Division Bench should not hear depriving the
petitioners to avail the right of appeal. Reference is also made to
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988)
2 SCC 602 (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & another) and
(2018) 8 SCC 396 (Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of
India & Anr). It is also argued that the present writ petition is
not a Public Interest Litigation for the reason that in (1992) 4
SCC 305 (Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and others), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle as to when the
Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.
It is also submitted that yesterday at 10.30 a.m., the learned
Advocate General made a mention to club the present writ
petition with the Public Interest Litigation without informing the
petitioners in this writ petition.
Per contra, the learned Advocate General would refer to the
sequence of events which happened in the Court when the
mention was made about this writ petition.
3
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
By filing a memo on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6, learned
Advocate General would refer to the averments made in
paragraph Nos.10, 12, 13,17, 20 and 23 of W.P (PIL) No.222 of
2020 and those averred in paragraph Nos.5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 and
20 of W.P.No.3041 of 2023 to submit that the factual foundation
in both the writ petitions on the basis of which the reliefs have
been sought are one and the same, although in W.P. (PIL) No.222
of 2020, the private company was not made as party and no relief
was claimed against them in W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020.
Learned Advocate General would submit that merely because
the Hon'ble Chief Minister was not made as party in the earlier
W.P (PIL), it would not become different than the present writ
petition, more so, when the Hon'ble Chief Minister is named in the
averments made in W.P (PIL) without making him or the company
as parties in W.P (PIL).
Learned Advocate General would also submit that the reliefs
claimed in the present writ petition are also similar to the reliefs
claimed in W.P (PIL), because the said reliefs are not personal to
the petitioners but they are in the nature of direction for recovery
of monies from respondent No.7 paid by the Government to
volunteers and functionaries, which has been infused into the
respondent No.7.
Having perused the averments made in both the writ petitions
which are mainly concerning the circulation of various news
papers in the State and the nature of the allegations which are
mainly focusing on the undeserving benefit of advertisement
money to Sakshi newspaper at the cost of general public, we are
of the view that the issues involved in both the writ petitions are
substantially the same.
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
If W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020 is taken up and dismissed, the
foundation of nature of allegations in this writ petition would fall
without hearing the petitioners in W.P.No.3041 of 2023. Since the
factual foundation in both the matters appears to be one and the
same, we are of the considered opinion that both the matters can
be clubbed and heard together by this Court.
Though the learned counsel for the parties have referred to the
manner in which mention was made for listing this matter on
yesterday at 10.30 a.m., and thereafter, before other Bench, we
are not inclined to enter into that aspect as it reflects on the
conduct of the counsel rather than Court proceedings.
Learned Advocate General has tried to read out the orders
issued by the departments of Grampanchayat and Panchayat Raj
etc., to submit that at the threshold, the matter is not cognizable
by the single Bench, where it was listed yesterday. However, we
do not want to enter into this aspect also, since we have now
decided that both the matters have overlapping factual foundation
and can be heard together by this Bench.
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.3041 of 2023
This application for dispensing with filing of certified copy of
the Circular dated 9.12.2022, is considered and allowed.
I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 in W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Heard.
Post on 14.02.2023 for pronouncement of orders.
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Official respondents are represented by the learned Advocate
General.
Let official respondents file counter-affidavit(s) in two weeks.
W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020
Counter-affidavit(s) shall be filed in two weeks in this petition
also.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Nn/MRR
W.P.(PIL) No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
