Telangana High Court
A.B.K. Prasad vs The Union Of India on 11 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
+ PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Nos.135 and 161 of 2012
% Date:11.09.2024
# A.B.K.Prasad and another.
... Petitioners
v.
$ The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
And others
... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012:
Mr. Prabhakar Sripada,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. K.Raghunatha Rao
! Counsel for the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012:
Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao,
learned Senior Counsel
^ Counsel for the respondents :
Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma,
learned Additional Solicitor
General of India for the
respondents No.1, 3 and 6 in
P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and for
2
respondent No.1 in P.I.L.No.161
of 2012.
Ms. Divya Adepu,
learned Special Government
Pleader for respondent No.2 in
both the petitions.
Mr. Srinivas Kapatia,
learned Special Public Prosecutor
for Central Bureau of
Investigation for respondent No.4
in both the petitions.
Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. Peri Prabhakar,
learned counsel for respondent
No.5 in both the petitions.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra,
learned Senior Counsel
representing
Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy,
learned counsel for the newly
impleaded respondent No.7 in
P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and
respondent No.6 in P.I.L.No.161
of 2012.
< GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
1. [1926] A.C. 155
2. [1981] 3 WLR 906
3. (1984) 2 SCC 324
4. (2010) 13 SCC 158
5. (2020) 5 SCC 378
3
6. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541
7. (2013) 2 SCC 398
8. (2010) 3 SCC 571
9. (1996) 11 SCC 253
10. (2000) 3 SCC 761
11. (2004) 4 SCC 432
12. (2007) 1 SCC 59
13. (2014) 4 SCC 626
14. (2018) 7 SCC 365
15. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515
16. AIR 1961 SC 1457
17. AIR 1968 SC 1196
18. (2011) 5 SCC 607
19. (1990) 2 SCC 715
20. (2010) 3 SCC 353
21. (2011) 3 SCC 408
22. (2014) 6 SCC 351
23. (1986) 1 SCC 100
24. (2020) 2 SCC 1
25. (2022) 4 SCC 764
26. (2016) 15 SCC 13
27. (2009) 2 SCC 479
28. (2012) 7 SCC 610
29. (2021) 13 SCC 225
30. (2006) 3 SCC 434
31. (2020) 14 SCC 12
32. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884
33. (2023) 5 SCC 802
34. (2010) 3 SCC 402
35. (2015) 7 SCC 779
36. (2021) 3 SCC 160
37. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20
38. (2007) 10 SCC 635
39. (2008)12 SCC 481
40. (2010) 11 SCC 557
41. (2011) 7 SCC 69
42. 2021 SCC Online SC 1194
4
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Nos.135 and 161 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. K.Raghunatha Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012.
Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012.
Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India for the respondents No.1, 3 and 6
in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and for respondent No.1 in
P.I.L.No.161 of 2012.
Ms. Divya Adepu, learned Special Government
Pleader for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation for
respondent No.4 in both the petitions.
Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for
respondent No.5 in both the petitions.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel
for the newly impleaded respondent No.7 in P.I.L.No.135 of
2012 and respondent No.6 in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012
(hereinafter referred to as, "the newly impleaded
respondent").
2. In P.I.L.No.135 of 2012, the petitioners seek a
direction to the Union of India to issue a notification under
Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946, extending the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to the subject matter covered by
G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006 issued by the erstwhile
State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners also seek a
direction to the CBI to take up the consequential
investigation into the subject matter of Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU)/Sale/Agreement of lands done at
unconscionably low prices and in a non-transparent
manner entered into by the erstwhile Government of
Andhra Pradesh with M/s.IMG Bharata Academies Private
Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The
petitioners further seek a direction to direct the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) to exercise the power of
superintendence in the investigation conducted by the CBI.
3. In P.I.L.No.161 of 2012, the petitioner seeks a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation into the subject
matter of Memorandum of Understanding/Sale/Agreement
of lands done at unconscionably low prices and in a non-
transparent manner entered into by the erstwhile
Government of Andhra Pradesh with the Company and to
prosecute the culprits based on the investigation.
(i) ANTECEDENTS OF PETITIONERS:
4. The petitioner No.1 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 is the
Founder Editor of Eenadu Newspaper of Telugu Vernacular
News Daily in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and is
a Journalist by profession and lives in an old age home.
The petitioner No.2 in the said public interest litigation is a
Chartered Accountant by profession since 1986. The
petitioner No.2 at the time of filing the public interest
litigation was lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, in
connection with crime registered in R.C.No.19/2011 by
CBI. It has been stated that the aforesaid criminal case
pertains to an investigation into Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy
Group of Companies of which petitioner No.2 is an advisor.
The petitioner No.2 is also the advisor to the family of late
Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy and belongs to the Congress
Party. He is also a Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha,
from YSRCP, a political party in Andhra Pradesh which
was founded by Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Sri
Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy.
5. The petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 is an Advocate
practising in the Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad,
and other Courts. He got enrolled as an Advocate in the
year 1988 and was General Secretary and President of the
Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, during the years
1996 to 1998 and 2008-2009. He claims to be active in
public life and filed several cases against corrupt officers
which were referred to ACB for enquiry.
(ii) BACKGROUND FACTS:
6. Facts leading to filing of the public interest litigations
briefly stated are that the Company was incorporated on
05.08.2003 under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh, on
09.08.2003, had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with the Company. Under the
aforesaid MoU, the State of Andhra Pradesh identified the
Company as an expert organisation which can produce and
train champions in various sports. The erstwhile
Government of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as,
"the State") under the MoU agreed that it shall sell
Acs.400.00 of land in survey No.25 of Kancha Gachibowli
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to
the Company to build, develop, own and operate Sports
Academies.
7. The State further agreed to sell another extent of land
measuring Acs.450.00 in survey No.99/1 of Mammidipalli
Village, near Shamshabad Airport, Ranga Reddy District, to
enable the Company to build and operate the facilities and
activities relating to Sports Academies and also agreed to
sell land measuring Acs.1.00 to Acs.5.00 in the area on the
main road from Banjara Hills, Hyderabad to Shilparamam,
Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District, to build an International
Class Office Headquarters with the condition that the
Company shall not alienate such lands. In furtherance of
the aforesaid MoU dated 09.08.2003, the State executed a
registered sale deed in favour of the Company on
10.02.2004 in respect of the land measuring Acs.400.00 at
the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for a consideration of
Rs.2.00 crores.
8. Thereafter, elections to the State Assembly were held
in the year 2004 and the Indian National Congress was
voted to power. The said party formed the Government in
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The State
Government, thereafter, vide G.O.Rt.No.614, dated
30.06.2006, constituted a Committee of Officers to go into
the circumstances leading to execution of MoU with the
Company and the matters connected with the same. The
Committee of Officers submitted a Report in the month of
August, 2006. Thereafter, in the meeting of the Cabinet
held on 30.09.2006, an Ordinance was approved to cancel
the MoU as well as the sale deed executed in favour of the
Company. A decision was taken by the Cabinet to order a
CBI enquiry.
9. The State Legislature issued an Ordinance, namely
Ordinance No.12 of 2006 on 20.11.2006. Thereafter,
G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006, was issued according
consent for investigation by the CBI.
10. The State Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh
Government Property (Preservation, Protection and
Presumption) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
2007 Act'). Under Section 2 of the 2007 Act, the MoU dated
09.08.2003 and sale deed dated 10.02.2004 as well as
other benefits made available to the Company under the
MoU were annulled. In lieu thereof, the Company was held
entitled to reasonable compensation along with interest
@ 12% per annum.
11. The Joint Director, CBI, Chennai by a communication
dated 29.01.2007 addressed to the State expressed its
inability to take up the investigation on account of resource
constraint and requested the State to conduct an enquiry
at their level and refer the matter to them, if cognizable
offence against certain officers is made out. Thereafter, the
then Chief Minister on 29.03.2007 directed preliminary
enquiry to be held by CBCID. The Joint Director, CBI,
Chennai again vide communication dated 14.09.2007
expressed inability of the CBI to conduct the investigation
due to resource constraint and requested the State to
conduct preliminary enquiry and to submit a report to
them. The petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 submitted a
representation to the Union of India to issue notification
under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.310 dated
13.12.2006. In the aforesaid factual background, the
Public Interest Litigations were filed seeking the reliefs as
stated supra.
12. It is not in dispute that the validity of the 2007 Act
was challenged by the Company in a writ petition, namely
W.P.No.24781 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 07.03.2024 upheld the validity of the 2007 Act
and dismissed the writ petition. Admittedly, against the
aforesaid order, a Special Leave Petition, namely S.L.P. (C)
No.9265 of 2024, was filed. The said SLP has been
dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated
03.05.2024.
(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
13. Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 submitted that the
petitioners have locus standi to file the public interest
litigation and the same has been filed bona fide. It is
further submitted that the law does not prohibit a
politician from filing a public interest litigation. It is also
submitted that the State Government itself had directed an
enquiry by the CBI and the CBI in its counter affidavit has
stated that it is willing to conduct an enquiry.
14. Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 has invited the
attention of this Court to the stand taken by the State
Government as well as the CBI in the counter affidavit and
has submitted that the State Government has already
ordered an investigation by the CBI and the petitioner in
the said public interest litigation is merely seeking
enforcement of the order passed by the State Government.
It is further submitted that investigation in the facts and
circumstances of the case deserves to hand over to CBI to
ensure fair investigation and to instil confidence of public
in general. It is contended that a criminal offence is
considered as a wrong against the State or society or
merely on the ground of delay, this Court cannot throw the
prosecution away.
(iv) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS,
NAMELY STATE AND CBI:
15. Ms. Divya Adepu, learned Special Government
Pleader for respondent No.2 in both the petitions, while
inviting the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the State submitted that the State has
already taken a decision to hand over investigation to the
CBI and the State Government is ready and willing to abide
by the directions which may be issued by this Court.
16. Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India for the respondents No.1, 3 and
respondent No.6 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and for
respondent No.1 in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 has submitted
that the CBI had asked the State Government to carry on
the investigation and submit a preliminary report into the
commission of the offence to enable the CBI to proceed
further with the investigation. However, till today,
preliminary investigation has not been conducted by the
State Government. However, the CBI shall abide by the
direction which may be issued by this Court.
(v) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.7 in
P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 AND RESPONDENT No.6 in
P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 (NEWLY IMPLEADED
RESPONDENT):
17. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel
for the newly impleaded respondent has submitted that the
said respondent at the relevant time was the Sports
Minister of the State. It is pointed out that Smt Y.S.Vijaya,
wife of late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, had filed a writ
petition, namely W.P.No.28951 of 2011, being aggrieved by
inaction of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh as well as
the CBI in not initiating penal action against respondent
No.8 therein, namely Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, and
his associates who were arrayed as respondent Nos.9 to 20
in the said writ petition. In the said writ petition, a
direction was sought to the State as well as the CBI to
conduct an investigation into the allotment of lands, grant
of licences, decisions of disinvestment and amassing
disproportionate wealth and assets by the respondents
No.8 to 10 and the involvement of the respondents No.11 to
20 therein and to prosecute the unofficial respondents. It
is pointed out that in the said writ petition, the Managing
Director of the Company, namely Mr. Ahobala Rao, was
arrayed as respondent No.14. It is further pointed out that
the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of
this Court by an order dated 16.02.2012. It is also pointed
out that the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench
of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court vide order
dated 23.07.2012 in SLP (C) No.19047 of 2012 and
therefore this second round of litigation cannot be
entertained, as the issue involved in the writ petition has
attained finality in the aforesaid previous round of
litigation.
18. Learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of
this Court to a criminal complaint filed by one Mr. Palavai
Goverdhan Reddy claiming himself to be a social worker,
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
before the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated
19.04.2004 passed in C.C.SR No.674 of 2004. The
aforesaid order was assailed before this Court in Criminal
Revision Case No.964 and Criminal Revision Petition
No.962 of 2004. The aforesaid criminal revisions were
dismissed by an order dated 26.04.2006 by a learned
Single Judge of this Court. It is pointed out that in the
aforesaid criminal complaint and in the revision revisions,
the newly impleaded respondent was arrayed as a
respondent. It is submitted that the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands and are guilty of
suppression of facts. It is further submitted that present
public interest litigations are not bona fide and have been
filed on account of political rivalry. It is argued that this
Court can direct investigation by the CBI in rarest of rare
cases. It is contended that no complaint has been filed by
the petitioners before filing these writ petitions.
19. It is submitted that collateral challenge to a binding
judgment of a Court is not permissible by way of a writ
petition. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance
has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation 1, Hunter v.
Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police 2, Kausalya
Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer 3 and Omprakash
Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 4. It is urged that the
second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable. In
support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Samta Naidu v.
State of M.P 5. It is submitted that entertaining a public
interest litigation on a mere allegation without exhausting
the remedy provided under the law is not justifiable. In
support of the said submission reference has been made to
the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand
v. Shiv Shankar Sharma 6. It is argued that the petitioners
are guilty of suppression of facts and they have not
approached this Court with clean hands and on this
ground, the public interest litigations are liable to be
dismissed. Reference in this connection has been made to
[1926] A.C. 155
[1981] 3 WLR 906
(1984) 2 SCC 324
(2010) 13 SCC 158
(2020) 5 SCC 378
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541
the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite v.
State of Uttar Pradesh 7.
(vi) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.5:
20. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel
representing for the respondent No.5 in both the writ
petitions has contended that the State of Andhra Pradesh
has ceased to exist after bifurcation of the State with effect
from 02.06.2014 and the State of Telangana has not been
impleaded in these writ petitions. It is pointed out from the
cause title that the respondent No.5 is a corporate entity
and it is not sued through the Managing Director.
Therefore, the public interest litigations suffer from the
defect of improper description of the respondent No.5. It is
contended that the non-impleadment of the then Cabinet
which took the decisions in favour of the Company and
non-impleadment of the Managing Director of the Company
suffers from the inherent defect and therefore the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further contended
that initiation of criminal investigation falls within the
(2013) 2 SCC 398
domain of the executive power of the State and the
executive power of the State is coextensive with the
legislative power. It is submitted that once the State
Legislature has annulled the transactions, no enquiry into
the transaction is necessary. While referring to
G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006, it is contended that the
aforesaid Government Order does not indicate the offences
which are enquired into.
21. It is argued that since no First Information Report
has been registered before issuance of the Government
Order, the question of investigation does not arise. It is
submitted that no complaint has been filed by the
petitioners and the consent given by the State is based on
assumption of facts and therefore G.O.Ms.No.310 is
inchoate and does not fall within the purview of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
22. It is further submitted that before issuance of the
Government Order, the Ordinance, namely Ordinance
No.12 of 2006, was issued on 20.11.2006 and therefore,
the transactions in favour of the Company were annulled.
It is pointed out that after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.310,
dated 13.12.2006, the public interest litigations have been
filed after a period of six years, therefore petitions suffer
from delay and laches. Nowhere in the public interest
litigations the petitioners have explained the delay between
the period from 2006 to 2012. It is contended that the
decision of the Cabinet cannot constitute an offence.
23. It is submitted that the power of this Court can be
exercised to direct the investigation by the CBI in rarest of
rare cases and not as a matter of course. In support of the
aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal 8. It is contended that in the public interest
litigations, no element of public interest is involved and the
petitioners are in active politics and the public interest
litigations are motivated and mala fide.
(2010) 3 SCC 571
(vii) REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS:
24. Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 submits that the
petitioner No.2 in the said public interest litigation is a
politician. However, the law does not debar him from filing
the public interest litigation. It is contended that the public
interest litigation has been filed bona fide and involves an
element of public interest.
25. Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012, by way of rejoinder
submitted that the scope of the public interest litigations
has been misconstrued on behalf of the respondents and
from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI, it is
evident that it is willing to take up the investigation. The
attention of this Court is invited to paragraph 10 of the
order of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19047 of 2012,
dated 23.07.2012, and it has been pointed out that the
Supreme Court itself has not expressed any opinion on any
criminal misconduct or misuse of power by the
respondents No.9 to 20 in the writ petition. It is contended
that the Supreme Court had granted the liberty to the
petitioner in the said writ petition to approach the
competent court or the competent authority for any act of
misconduct which allegedly may be committed by the
respondent No.8 individually or in concert with
respondents No.9 to 20 in the writ petition and therefore,
the order passed in the previous round of litigation as well
as the Supreme Court is not a bar in entertaining the
present public interest litigations.
26. It is urged that the petitioner had submitted a
representation dated 13.01.2012 to the Government of
India and has not approached this Court directly. It is
argued that the Committee of Officers had submitted the
report to the State Government in the month of August,
2006, and on the basis of the report submitted by the
Committee of Officers, the State Government decided to
hand over the investigation to CBI. It is pointed out that
there is no allegation against the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161
of 2012 and the public interest litigation has been filed in
public interest. It is submitted that on the basis of new
material adduced during the course of an enquiry, an
investigating agency can conduct further enquiry. It is
urged that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sidharth
Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, have no application to the
facts of the case, as they have been rendered in different
factual context.
27. It is submitted that by virtue of Section 104 of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the State of
Telangana stands substituted in place of the State of
Andhra Pradesh and therefore, it is not necessary for the
petitioner to amend the cause title. In support of his
submissions reliance has been placed on the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Rajesh Gandhi 9, K.Karunakaran v. State of Kerala 10,
Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan 11, K.Karunakaran v.
State of Kerala 12, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State
of Gujarat 13, E.Sivakumar v. Union of India 14 and State
(1996) 11 SCC 253
(2000) 3 SCC 761
(2004) 4 SCC 432
(2007) 1 SCC 59
(2014) 4 SCC 626
(2018) 7 SCC 365
through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra
Reddy 15.
(viii) DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1946:
28. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is
an Act to make provision for constitution of a special police
force in Delhi for investigation of certain offences in the
Union Territory, for the superintendence and
administration of the said force and for extension to other
areas, of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the
said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences.
Section 2 deals with Constitution and Powers of Special
Police Establishment. Section 2(1) provides that
notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861, the
Central Government may constitute a special police force
to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment for
investigation in any Union Territory of the offences notified
under Section 3. Section 3 enables the Central Government
to specify the offences or classes of offences, by a
notification in the Official Gazette which are to be
2023 SCC OnLine SC 515
investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
Section 5 deals with extension of powers and jurisdiction of
Special Police Establishment to other areas. Section 6
provides that nothing contained in Section 5 shall be
deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any
area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area,
without the consent of the Government of that State.
(ix) G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006:
29. After the change of the Government in the erstwhile
State of Andhra Pradesh, the then State Government
decided to entrust the enquiry about transactions relating
to and the matters connected with Memorandum of
Understanding/sale/agreement of lands, entered into by
Government of Andhra Pradesh at unconscionably low
prices and in a non-transparent manner with the
Company, for investigation under Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Enactment, 1946 for enabling the Central
Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case. Thereupon,
the following notification vide G.O.Ms.No.310, dated
13.12.2006 was issued:
"Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946),
the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby accord
consent for exercise of powers and jurisdiction of the
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in
the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the
investigation into the transactions entered into
between IMG Academies Bharatha Private Limited and
Government of Andhra Pradesh on 09.08.2003
relating to and the matters connected with the
Memorandum of Understanding/sale/Agreement of
lands entered into by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh at low price and its subsequent transactions
held with IMG Academies Bharatha Private Limited
and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation
to or in connection with the said transactions and any
other transaction committed in the course of the same
transaction or arising out of the same fact or facts."
30. The CBI on receipt of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.310,
dated 13.12.2006, requested the State Government vide
letter No.1/150/C1/2007/Hyd/SZ/70, dated 29.01.2007
to conduct a preliminary enquiry with regard to the
allegations mentioned in the aforesaid GO and refer the
matter to it if commission of cognizable offences were made
out against certain officials and if deemed appropriate.
Thereafter, nearly after eight months by another
communication dated 14.09.2007, CBI again requested the
State Government to conduct a preliminary enquiry.
However, till today no preliminary enquiry has been
conducted by the State Government to find out whether
commission of any cognizable offences with regard to the
transactions and the matters connected thereto as referred
to in G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006.
(x) PRINCIPLE OF FINALITY OF LITIGATION:
31. Twin principles, firstly that finality should be
attached to binding decisions of the Court and secondly,
that individuals should not be vexed twice over the same
kind of litigation from the foundation of general rule of res
judicata. The principles of res judicata applied to the writ
proceeding (see Daryao vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 16,
Virudhuttagar Steel Rolling Mills Limited vs.
Government of Madras 17 and Shankara Cooperative
AIR 1961 SC 1457
AIR 1968 SC 1196
Housing Society Limited vs. M.Prabhakar 18). Similarly,
the issue whether principles of constructive res judicata
apply to writ proceedings has also been answered in the
affirmative by Supreme Court (see Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of
Maharashtra 19, S.Nagaraj (dead) by LRs vs.
B.R.Vasudeva Murthy 20, M.Nagabhushana vs. State of
Karnataka 21 and Union of India vs. Major S.P.Sharma 22).
32. It is equally a well settled legal proposition that a
decision rendered in public interest litigation has a binding
effect as long as litigants act bana fide, as judgment in
such a case binds the public at large and bars any member
of the public from raising any connected issue or an issue
which has been raised or should have been raised on an
earlier occasion by way of public interest (see Forward
Construction Company vs. Prabhat Mandal 23, Kantaru
Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers' Association 24 and
(2011) 5 SCC 607
(1990) 2 SCC 715
(2010) 3 SCC 353
(2011) 3 SCC 408
(2014) 6 SCC 351
(1986) 1 SCC 100
(2020) 2 SCC 1
National Confederation of Officers Association of
Central Public Sector enterprises vs. Union of India 25).
(xi) PREVIOUS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
33. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal principles, we may
now advert to the facts of the case in hand. Admittedly,
Smt Y.S.Vijaya, w/o late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy,
former Chief Minister of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh
had filed a public interest litigation. In the said writ
petition, Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu was arrayed as
respondent No.8 and the Managing Director of the
Company, namely Mr. Ahobala Rao was arrayed as
respondent No.14. It is pertinent to note that petitioner
No.2 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 is a Member of Parliament
(Rajya Sabha), YSRCP in Andhra Pradesh, a political party
constituted by Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, s/o late Sri
Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy. The petitioner No.2 in P.I.L.No.135
of 2012 is associated with Smt Y.S.Vijaya as he was the
advisor to the family of late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy. In
(2022) 4 SCC 764
the writ petition filed by Smt Y.S.Vijaya, W/o late Sri
Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, it was inter alia averred that
respondent No.8 in the writ petition, namely Sri Nara
Chandra Babu Naidu, during his tenure as Chief Minister
of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, and respondent
Nos.9 to 20 in the said writ petition have acted in concert
to ensure that there is a wrongful gain and designed to
advantage them at the cost of exchequer. In the writ
petition, various allegations were made against the then
Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh Sri Nara
Chandra Babu Naidu, including the action taken by the
Cabinet to allot the land to the Company. It was further
pleaded that they have committed offences under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Representation of
People Act, 1951, the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,
1982 and Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. In
the said writ petition, Managing Director of Company was
arrayed as respondent No.14. A direction was therefore
sought for an enquiry by an appropriate agency, like CBI
into alleged acts of criminal misconduct committed by
respondent Nos.8 to 20 from 1995 till 2004. In the said
writ petition, the following reliefs were prayed for:
".. to issue a writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring
the inaction of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 in initiating
penal action against the 8th respondent and his
associates i.e., respondent Nos.9 to 20 under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
the Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other applicable
penal laws as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct
the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to initiate proceedings
under law including by issuing a further direction to
the 4th respondent to conduct an investigation/probe
in respect of allotment of lands granting of licences
decisions of disinvestment and amassing
disproportionate wealth and assets by the respondent
Nos.8 to 10 and the involvement of the respondent
Nos.11 to 20 and prosecute the unofficial respondents
and others in accordance with law."
34. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated
16.02.2012 dismissed the writ petition. The operative
portion of the aforesaid order is extracted below for the
facility of reference:
"From the decisions noticed above, it can be
concluded that for entertaining a writ petition as a
Public Interest Litigation what is required to be seen is
existence of substance in the material and failure of
public duty. That apart the petitioner must not have a
personal interest and he should be in a position to
demonstrate that he is moving the process of law for
the benefit of unrepresented or underrepresented
strata of the society. In case the Court comes to a
conclusion that there are no bona fides on the part of
the petitioner and that the petitioner has abused the
process of law, such litigation should be curbed at the
earliest stage.
The petitioner in the instant case has never
taken any steps before the competent authority to
take up the inquiry/investigation against the
respondent No.8 and not even a complaint is lodged
with the police. Hence, the petitioner cannot attribute
any inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Thus, it is not a case of failure of public duty.
Moreover, there is political rivalry and the
present writ petition is filed as a counter attack to the
investigation ordered against the son of the petitioner
in P.Shankar Rao's case (P.Shankar Rao vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh (2011 (5) ALT 1(DB)).
The admitted facts borne out of the record make it
clear that the writ petition is not bona fide and that
the approach of the petitioner is motivated to settle
the political scores. Therefore, in our considered
opinion, the writ petition cannot be maintained as a
Public Interest Litigation.
Conclusion:
For the reasons stated hereinbefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable as a Public Interest
Litigation and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
We have already expressed above that the order dated
14.11.2011 being in violation of the fundamental
principles of natural justice is a nullity.
Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2011 is
hereby recalled and the writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.39944 and 40862 of 2011
which are filed by the proposed interveners shall also
stand dismissed. No costs."
35. Against the aforesaid order, special leave petition,
namely S.L.P. (C) No.19047 of 2012 was preferred by Smt
Y.S.Vijaya, which was dismissed by a speaking order dated
23.07.2012 by the Supreme Court. The relevant extract of
the order reads as under:
"On the facts set out by the High Court in its
order, we are of the opinion that the High Court was
entitled to take the view that the writ petition filed by
the petitioner was not genuinely in public interest. If
that be so as we think it is, we are not inclined to
interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, which
too is discretionary in nature. We, however, make it
clear that the refusal of the High Court to invoke its
writ jurisdiction in public interest or the refusal of this
Court to interfere with the discretionary order passed
by the High Court should not be understood to mean
that we have expressed any opinion about the
correctness or otherwise of the allegations made
against respondents 8 to 20. Whether or not
respondent has amassed wealth and whether or not
he has committed any criminal misconduct or
misused his powers to give benefit to respondents 9 to
20 or to anyone else are matters to which we have not
adverted nor expressed any opinion about the same.
All that the High Court has done by its order is that it
has refused to exercise its powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution; which order we are not inclined to
interfere with under Article 136 of the Constitution.
There is therefore no gainsaying that if the petitioner
is aggrieved of any act of misconduct allegedly
committed by respondent No.8, individually or in
concert with respondents 9 to 20, she shall be free to
approach the competent court or the competent
authority in accordance with law for redress including
redress in the nature of demanding an investigation
into the allegations levelled against the said
respondent or anyone who has benefitted from the
alleged illegal acts of omission or commission of
respondent No.8."
(xii) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT:
36. One Palvai Govardhan Reddy filed a complaint under
Section 200 CrPC. In the aforesaid complaint, Sri Nara
Chandra Babu Naidu, the then Chief Minister of the State
of Andhra Pradesh, was impleaded as respondent No.1,
whereas newly impleaded respondent was arrayed as
respondent No.4, whereas Director of the Company,
Mr. Ahobala Rao was arrayed as respondent No.7. The
Company was arrayed as respondent No.7 in the said
complaint. In the complaint, it was inter alia averred that
the then Chief Minister acted in utmost haste, throwing to
winds norms of good governance to enable the Company to
acquire Acs.850.00 of land for a throw away price.
37. The Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad by an order dated 19.04.2004 passed
CCSR No.674 of 2004, in para 11, held as under:
"11. For these reasons, I hold that the complaint
does not make out any basis for ordering enquiry for
the offence covered under the Provisions of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus considered, I do not
find any sufficient grounds for referred the matter for
investigation or for proceeding against the accused
persons."
38. The aforesaid order was assailed by the Complainant,
namely Sri Palvai Govardhan Reddy in Criminal Revision
Case No.964 and Criminal Revision Petition No.962 of 2004
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned Single
Judge of this Court by an order dated 26.04.2006,
dismissed the criminal revisions. The operative portion of
the order reads as under:
"32. Even with regard to the allotment
made in favour of the company, in case it is
found that it is not to the advantage of the State
and no public interest is involved, the subsequent
government may cancel the same, in case the
same can be done, as per law. But the decision of
the previous Cabinet/Government cannot be
called an offence. No case is brought to my notice,
where for a cabinet decision prosecution was
launched.
33. In all these circumstances, I hold that
there are no grounds to allow the revision case
and it is accordingly dismissed."
39. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of liberty
granted to the petitioner by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C)
No.19047 of 2012, the petitioner therein has not filed any
complaint. Admittedly, the order passed in criminal
revisions has also attained finality.
40. Thus, it is evident that the issues with regard to
allotment of land to the Company and the alleged
irregularity/offence which might have been committed
while allotting the land to the Company have been
adjudicated and attained finality. The eminent need for
consistency in the view taken by the Courts on the same
issue does not need any emphasis (see Shanti Conductor
Private Limited vs. Assam SEB 26). The decision rendered
in a public interest litigation as well as the complaint filed
under Section 200 CrPC have a binding effect and binds
the public at large. The petitioners in these writ petitions,
therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any issue, which
has been raised or should have been raised on an earlier
occasion and any connected issue, namely an enquiry by
the CBI.
(xiii) DELAY AND LACHES:
41. The principle that extraordinary discretionary
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would not be exercised in favour of a
person who approaches this Court with delay and laches
(see S.S.Balu vs. State of Kerala 27, Vijay Kumar Kaul vs.
(2016) 15 SCC 13
(2009) 2 SCC 479
Union of India 28 and U.P.Power Corporation Limited vs.
Ram Gopal 29). The Supreme Court in Bombay Dyeing and
Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Bombay
Environmental Action Group 30, has held that doctrine of
delay and laches applies to public interest litigations as
well. In para 341, it has been held as under:
"341. Delay and laches on the part of the writ
petitioners indisputably have a role to play in the
matter of grant of reliefs in a writ petition. This Court
in a large number of decisions has categorically laid
down that where by reason of delay and/or laches on
the part of the writ petitioners the parties altered their
positions and/or third-party interests have been
created, public interest litigations may be summarily
dismissed. Delay although may not be the sole ground
for dismissing a public interest litigation in some
cases and, thus, each case must be considered having
regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining
therein, the underlying equitable principles cannot be
ignored. As regards applicability of the said principles,
public interest litigations are no exceptions. We have
heretobefore noticed the scope and object of public
interest litigation. Delay of such a nature in some
cases is considered to be of vital importance.
(See Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja [(2003)
8 SCC 567].)"
(2012) 7 SCC 610
(2021) 13 SCC 225
(2006) 3 SCC 434
42. In the instant case, the land was sold to the
Company on 10.02.2004. The State Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.614, dated 30.06.2006 had constituted a
Committee of Officers to go into circumstances leading to
execution of MoU and the matters connected therein. The
Committee of Officers submitted a report in the month of
August, 2006. An Ordinance was approved on 20.11.2006
to cancel the MoU as well as the sale deed executed in
favour of the Company. On 13.12.2006, the State
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.310 according consent for
investigation by the CBI. Thereafter, the 2007 Act was
amended by which the sale deed and the MoU and others
benefits made available to the company were annulled.
The petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 after a period of six
years submitted a representation to Government of India
23.07.2012. The petitioners in the other writ petitions, did
not take any action for six long years. These writ petitions,
namely P.I.L.Nos.135 of 2012 and 161 of 2012 have been
filed on 01.03.2012 and 13.04.2012 respectively i.e., after
a period of six years. No explanation has been offered on
behalf of the petitioners for their inaction for six long years.
The writ petitions therefore suffer from delay and laches
and on this ground also no interference in exercise of
extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction is called for in
these petitions.
(xiv) DIRECTIONS FOR ENQUIRY BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
43. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State
of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra) held that a
direction by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to CBI to
investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territory of a State without the
consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal
structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
separation of powers and shall be valid in law. In para 70 it
was held as under:
"70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers
conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution,
while passing any order, the Courts must bear in
mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise
of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of
the power under the said articles requires great
caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of
issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines
can be laid down to decide whether or not such power
should be exercised but time and again it has been
reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because a party has
levelled some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number
of cases and with limited resources, may find it
difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and
in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations."
44. The aforesaid legal position was referred to with
approval in para 42 in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union
of India 31. The principle that power to order an
investigation by the CBI must be exercised with great
caution and cannot be issued as a matter of routine or
merely because a party have levelled allegations against the
local police, has been reiterated in Himanshu Kumar vs.
State of Chattisgarh 32 and Anant Thanur Karmuse vs.
State of Maharashtra 33.
45. It is pertinent to note that neither any complaint has been
filed nor any offence has been registered. It is noteworthy that
the CBI requested the State Government vide communication
dated 29.01.2007 to conduct a preliminary enquiry and refer
the matter to CBI in case a cognizable offence is made out. It is
also noteworthy that the Chief Minister, thereafter on
29.03.2007 directed the preliminary enquiry to be held by
CBCID. The CBI by a communication dated 14.09.2007 once
again requested the State Government to conduct a preliminary
enquiry and to submit a report to it. The State Government,
despite the order of the Chief Minister, till today did not even
conduct a preliminary enquiry and has failed to explain in its
inaction in the counter affidavit. It is relevant to mention that
(2020) 14 SCC 12
2022 SCC OnLine SC 884
(2023) 5 SCC 802
the petitioners in the writ petitions have not made any
allegations against the local police. It is also noteworthy that no
first information report has been registered with regard to the
transaction in question. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, no case for grant of any direction to
CBI to conduct investigation is made out.
(xv) SCOPE AND AMBIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
46. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and
ambit of public interest litigation in State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal 34, in para 181 has held as under:
"(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona
fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL
filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his
own procedure for dealing with the public interest
litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court
to properly formulate rules for encouraging the
genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with
oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the
High Courts who have not yet framed the rules,
should frame the rules within three months. The
Registrar General of each High Court is directed to
ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High
Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court
immediately thereafter.
(2010) 3 SCC 402
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the
credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied
regarding the correctness of the contents of the
petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that
substantial public interest is involved before
entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition
which involves larger public interest, gravity and
urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should
ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine
public harm or public injury. The Court should also
ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive
or oblique motive behind filing the public interest
litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the
petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and
ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing
exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods
to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for
extraneous considerations."
47. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated with
approval in Anirudh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi 35. A three-Judge bench of Supreme Court in
(2015) 7 SCC 779
Prasanth Bhushan and another, in Re 36 has reiterated
the well settled position for relaxation of locus standi and
has cautioned the Courts to be careful in exercising the
jurisdiction while dealing with public interest litigation.
The relevant extract of para 46 reads as under:
"46. ...
"96. ...
97. Yet over time, it has been realised that this
jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly
misutilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one
end of that spectrum are those cases where public
interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek
publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are
petitions which have been instituted at the behest of
business or political rivals to settle scores behind the
facade of a public interest litigation. The true face of
the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled.
These concerns are indeed reflected in the judgment
of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal [State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 :
(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] . Underlining these
concerns, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 453, para
143)
'143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed
that such an important jurisdiction which has been
carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great
care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly
abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives.
We think time has come when genuine and bona fide
(2021) 3 SCC 160
public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas
frivolous public interest litigation should be
discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to
protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in
the larger interest of the people of this country but we
must take effective steps to prevent and cure its
abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary
directions by the courts.'
48. It is trite law that a person invoking the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must
approach the Court with clean hands and should not
conceal material facts. It has further been held that there
is necessity to save judicial process for becoming abuse to
subvert justice. The need to approach the Court with clean
hands is all the more necessary as law is not a game of
chess (See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 37,
Rajkumar Sani v. State of U.P 38, K.D.Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Limited 39, Manoharlal v. Ugrasen40,
Amarsingh v. Union of India 41 and Shri. K.Jayaram v.
Bangalore Development Authority 42).
1993 Supp (2) SCC 20
(2007) 10 SCC 635
(2008)12 SCC 481
(2010) 11 SCC 557
(2011) 7 SCC 69
2021 SCC Online SC 1194
49. In the instant case, petitioner No.2 in P.I.L.No.135 of
2012 is associated with petitioner in W.P.No.28951 of
2011, namely Smt. Y.S.Vijaya, W/o late Sri
Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy. The petitioner No.2 admittedly has
a political background and was a Member of Parliament
(Rajya Sabha) from YSRCP, a political party in the State of
Andhra Pradesh formed by Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
S/o late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy. It is also not in
dispute that at the time of filing of the petition, petitioner
No.2 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 was lodged in Central Prison,
Chanchalguda in connection with crime registered in
R.C.No.19 of 2012 which pertains to investigation into Y.S.
Jagan Mohan Reddy Group of Companies. Thus, the
petitioner No.2 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 is political rival of
newly impleaded respondent. The petitioners in
P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 themselves in para 3 of the petition
had stated that they have filed an application for
intervention in WPMP No.40862 of 2011 in W.P.No.28951
of 2011 filed by Smt Y.S.Vijaya, W/o late Sri
Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy. Thus, the averments made in
W.P.No.28951 of 2011 were well within the knowledge of
the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012. The petitioner in
P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 claims to be a practising advocate in
Metropolitan Criminal Courts and other courts in
Hyderabad. The complaint filed by one Mr. Palvai
Govardhan Reddy under Section 200 CrPC was tried by a
Court at Hyderabad and was upheld by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.964 and
Criminal Revision Petition No.962 of 2004. Therefore, it can
safely be inferred that an advocate practising in
Hyderabad, namely petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012, had
the knowledge of such high profile litigation. It is pertinent
to note that it is not the case of petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of
2012 that he had no knowledge of the order passed in the
complaint. However, there is no mention in the affidavit
about the order of dismissal dated 19.04.2004 of the
complaint filed by Mr. Palvai Govardhan Reddy under
Section 200 CrPC by the Principal Special Judge for SPE
and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the
dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case No.964 and
Criminal Revision Petition No.962 of 2004, vide order dated
26.04.2006 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
Therefore, in the aforesaid obtaining factual matrix of the
case, we are not inclined to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction which otherwise is discretionary in nature.
(xvi) CONCLUSION:
50. In view of the preceding analysis we hold that the
orders passed in the earlier public interest litigation as well
as the complaint under Section 200 CrPC have a binding
effect and binds the public at large. The petitioners,
therefore, cannot be permitted to agitate the issue afresh in
these writ petitions. The writ petitions also suffer from
delay and laches. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, no case for grant of direction to CBI to investigate the
transaction in question is made out. Similarly, in the
obtaining factual matrix of the case, no case for exercise of
extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction is made out.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in the public interest litigations. The same fail and
are hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
11.09.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
(By order)
pln/vs
