N B RAO Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Nadendla Bhaskara Rao, is a senior politician of considerable standing. He was initially a member of the congress-I Party. The second respondent, Sri N.T. Rama Rao, a film artist of high repute, jumped into the political field in the year 1982. Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner joined hands to found a new regional political party. They worked together towards this end and created history by organizing a new political party from the scratch and contested in the general elections in December, 1982. The new political party captured power defeating the Congress-I party. On 9th Jan., 1983, respondent No. 2 was sworn in as Chief Minister of the State aid the petitioner joined the Cabinet as Finance Minister. They worked together for about twenty months. Unfortunately dissensions arose and the petitioner and respondent No. 2 fell out.

(2.) In the struggle for capturing power the petitioner succeeded and respondent No. 2 went out of office. The petitioner was sworn in as the Chief Minister on 16-8-84. What happened during the subsequent one month is again unparalleled in the country's political history. Omitting certain details, not necessary for our purpose, it is enough to state that the petitioner was ousted and respondent No. 2 came back to power. In exactly one month from the date he relinquished office, respondent No. 2 was again sworn in as the Chief Minister on 16-9-84. Thus, the petitioner held the office of Chief Minister of the State for the period 16-8-84 to 15-9-84.

(3.) On 9-11-84, a Commission of Inquiry was constituted under S.3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Inquiry Act, 1952') to inquire into specific matters, the decisions concerning which were allegedly taken by the petitioner by improper or corrupt motive or with the intention of securing gain for himself. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India was appointed as under Ex. A-1 agreement; in turn it went as consideration to Ex. B-1 agreement which was spoken to by P. W. 2 and his wife, P. W. 7; the appellant put the respondent in possession of the suit land who continued in possession thereof till date of the suit; the Court appointed a Receiver at his behest; thus the possession continues to be with the respondent. From the facts thus found, mere discrepancies on inconsequential particulars do not aftect the decree for Specific performance granted by the Court below warranting interference.