I SURENDRA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition came to be filed in the nature of public interest litigation, seeking the following relief:

(2.) A reading of the contents of the writ affidavit would show that the petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent, during his tenure as Director of the second respondent University for the period from 19.11.1999 to 12.10.2009, involved in several irregularities, namely, mismanagement of funds of the University, illegal promotions, irregular pay fixations etc. In the local audit conducted by the Accountant General of the State for the period from 2001-02 to 2008-09, several financial irregularities were pointed out by the Audit Department. According to the audit report, public funds of the second respondent University, to a tune of about Rs.11.00 crores, were misused. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 5 on 18.05.2011, requesting them to conduct a detailed independent enquiry in relation to the alleged irregularities pointed out in the audit report, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, this pro bono litigation.

(3.) At paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner detailed the irregularities allegedly committed by the sixth respondent, including those pointed out in the audit report, which resulted in financial burden upon the second respondent university, as indicated in a tabular form, which is extracted hereunder: