P SHANKAR RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging tons of ill-gotten money to the credit of Sri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy 52nd Respondent herein, defrauding the public exchequer under the clout of his father, Late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, by managing allotments of lands, public properties and permissions, favouring various companies and individuals, leases and licenses at a price, far less than the market rate prevalent at the relevant point of time, besides, the sham transactions under the guise of sale and purchase of shares and the investments made in the companies, Shri Shanker Rao, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, now a Minister in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has sought indulgence of this Court through a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking a direction for prosecution of the Respondents. Letter was registered as a "Taken up writ petition" and after service of notices on the Respondents, the matter was heard from 14.2.2011 onwards.

(2.) A similar letter of the same MLA alleging giving away land belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, to a large extent to the men of his choice has also been separately entertained as a "Taken up Writ Petition No. 23958 of 2010", maintainability whereof was questioned by the Respondents, which could not prevail on the court and the said petition was held to be maintainable vide order dated 25.2.2011, accordingly it was ?admitted to hearing, directing notices to the parties to file additional pleadings if they so desire. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8366 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.3.2011. The Petitioner did not stop there but filed a review petition bearing No. WPMP 11284 of 2011 in WP No. 29358 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 20.4.2011 after having considered the challenge in detail. Challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition on hand is sought to be maintained on the grounds similar to the ones urged before us in W.P. No. 29358 of 2010, as is evidenced by the proceedings of this Court dated 14.3.2011 and in fairness there is No. attempt on the part of the counsel for the Respondents to be at variance on that count. Nevertheless, the Respondents are within their rights to raise the additional grounds. Situated thus, when this writ petition was taken up yesterday, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 52 questioned its maintainability on the ground of failure of the MLA to specify the reasons which prompted him to write a letter instead of lodging FIR with the Police or filing a complaint before the Magistrate. He contended further that Respondent No. 52 being a political opponent of the complainant, makes it manifest that the letter is politically motivated one. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. v. State of Sikkim and Ors., 2010 4 SCC 513 He also submitted that necessary ingredients for issuance of writ of mandamus are not fulfilled and thereby the power of judicial review does not deserve to be exercised in this case, particularly when the Enforcement Directorate is seized of the complaints which form the subject matter of some of the allegations in the letter of the Petitioner.

(3.) Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, and Mr. v. Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the Respondents as well as other learned Counsel appearing for other Respondents have adopted the submissions of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel and they made supplementary submissions. We have also heard Mr. N. Subba Reddy, the amicus curiae. During the hearing, we pointed out to the learned senior counsel appearing in the matter that in view of this Court appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court, the locus standi or the participation of the MLA on whose letters these proceedings were initiated, pales into insignificance as he is not any more participating in the proceedings and he has merely brought to the notice of this Court the serious allegations appearing against the Respondents. Although the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition almost on similar grounds was turned down vide order dated 25.2.2011 in WP No. 29358 of 2010 after due application of mind, yet an additional word on our part in respect of maintainability.