E GIRI YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao at length. The reliefs sought for in these public interest litigations may be noticed as under:

(2.) It would be noticed from the above that in PIL. No. 220 of 2012 petitioner seeks a Mandamus against the Union of India to invoke its powers under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution of India and consequently, impose Presidential Rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In PIL. No. 221 of 2012 though a declaratory relief against the first respondent, who is holding office of Minister is sought, in other words, is in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto.

(3.) Both these public interest litigations proceed on an assumption that there is a breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said assumption is drawn by the petitioner on the basis of the investigation report(s) submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State alleging massive corruption relating to the shops leased out by the State to vend Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the State's Excise Policy for the year 2011-2012.