KODAPALLY VENKATESWARULU Vs. KODELA SIVA PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTILAL B. NAIK, A.C.J. :- This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Dr. Kondapally Venkateswarulu, medical practitioner, resident of Narsaraopet, Guntur District. He seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or relief declaring the action of the fourth respondent for not giving consent to the fifth respondent for proceeding with the investigation in the criminal cases pending against the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and further seeks a direction to the fourth respondent to give consent to the fifth respondent for proceeding with the investigation in the criminal case registered against the first respondent and to direct the 5th respondent to proceed with the investigation and file charge-sheet in Crime No. 121 of 1991 on the file of Narasaraopet Town Police Station, in the interest of justice.

(2.) The gist of pleadings in the writ petition may be stated thus : Petitioner claims to be medical practitioner for the past 17 years, is a resident of Narsaraopet. He seems to have contested assembly elections from Narsaraopet Constituency in the year 1999. The first respondent was also a practicing doctor at Narsaraopet. There seems to be some enmity between the petitioner and the first respondent as they contested against each other in elections and also they are followers of two different political parties. From paragraphs 1 to 12, petitioner narrates several instances showing involvement of the first respondent, such as ransacking the properties, creating law and order problems during electioneering, assaulting public servants during electioneering etc. It is alleged that though several criminal cases were registered against the first respondent but some of them were not investigated and few of them are withdrawn as the first respondent used his political influence. However, from para 13 onwards, petitioner narrates the incident of bomb explosion which took place on 28-8-1999 at Narsaraopet during elections to Lok Sabha. According to him, during elections to Assembly and Lok Sabha in the year 1999, there was heavy explosion of bombs that were preserved in the building owned by the first respondent in Narsaraopet town. He alleges, as a result of explosion, four followers of the first respondent died on the spot and extensive damage was caused to the building. Though local police conducted investigation, due to pressure from public, the Government entrusted the case to CBCID. Petitioner, however, complains that handing over the case to CBCID is only an eye-wash and the case has not properly been investigated by the CBCID. In this background, one Mr. Kasu Krishna Reddy was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 18471 of 1999 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a direction to hand over the investigation of the said case to CBI. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29-9-1999 by a Division Bench directing the Government to handover the investigation of the said case to CBI. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the CBI took up investigation and examined number of witnesses, collected material objections, which showed involvement of the first respondent in the crime. Though investigation was completed in which sufficient material was found against the first respondent, prosecution could not be launched against the first respondent, as, under the provisions of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, unless the Central Government gives consent, prosecution cannot be initiated against the offender.

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioner that the CBI after examining number of witnesses and after collecting material against the first respondent sought consent of the Central Government for prosecuting the first respondent. It is further alleged, the Central Government headed by the present Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who is also holding Home Portfolio, were influenced by the first respondent for not granting consent and as a result, the consent was withheld on substantial grounds as if there are no grounds for granting consent. It is also alleged that since the first respondent is very closely associated with the ruling party and through the Chief Minister of this State has also influenced the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of India and has abused his position to bury the incident which had taken place in which four of the followers of the first respondent had died.