KANNA LAKSHMI NARAYANA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) on 19.1.2004, this petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as PIL after a similar petition (WP.Crl.Nos.272-273 of 2003) filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.2004 since the petitioners expressed their wish to approach this Court. At the outset, it may be mentioned that incorrect statement was made before us on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had been directed by the Supreme Court to file the petition in this Court. It is not so recorded in the order of Supreme Court.

(2.) The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in not conducting any investigation against Respondent No.2, who, as on that date, was the Chief Minister of the State, on various allegations of corruption and abuse of his official position as Chief Minister of the State, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct Government of India-3rd respondent and the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi - 1st respondent, under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission of India, to investigate into the alleged allegations of personal corruption and abuse of official position which, according to the petitioners, constitute criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') punishable under Sections 7 and 11 of the said Act, if necessary, by declaring Section 19 of the Act to be unconstitutional and further directing the respondents to take all consequential proceedings including prosecution against Respondent No.2 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court .

(3.) Petitioner No.1 on the date of filing of the petition was an Ex.M.L.A. of Peddakurapadu Assembly Constituency, Guntur District and now is a Minister in the Government in power. 2nd petitioner is General Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee. Both the petitioners are members of Indian National Congress Party and are claiming to be working for the welfare of the people of Andhra Pradesh and claim that they are aggrieved personally and in public interest and, as such, are filing the petition against the alleged personal corruption, abuse of power and criminal misconduct of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners state that the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983, is not made applicable to the Chief Minister though it was made applicable to the Ministers. The Anti Corruption Bureau, which is under the control of the State, is not taking action against the corrupt activities of the Chief Minister. No action has also been taken on the representation submitted to the Hon'ble Governor of the State. The Central Government, which is dependant on the support of the Chief Minister, is also not taking any action. The petitioners, therefore, claim that they have a public duty to bring to the notice of the Court of the alleged corruption of the 2nd respondent for appropriate orders or directions since the Public and Constitutional Authorities have failed to discharge their duties. Thus, they claim that they have locus to file the present petition, having no other effective alternative remedy open to them.