THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR versus VARLA RAMAIAH ETC. on 3 May 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interimorder passed by the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh atAmravati in I.A. No.1/2020 in Writ Petition No.6562 of 2020 and WritPetition No.6711 of 2020 by which while admitting the writ petitions theHigh Court has stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the G.O. Rt.No.1411 dated 26.06.2019 and G.O. Rt. No.344 dated 21.02.2020, theState of Andhra Pradesh has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

2.1 By virtue of G.O. issued on 26.06.2019, the State Governmentappointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to examine the allegations ofcorruption against members of the erstwhile Government. On 27.12.2019,the Cabinet Sub-Committee submitted an interim report recording a primafacie finding about certain allegations. During the meeting held on27.12.2019, the Sub-Committee also resolved to consider handing overthe investigation to the CBI/CID/Lokayukta. On the basis of the report,vide the second G.O. dated 21.02.2020, the State set up the SIT toundertake an investigation of these allegations. The said decision wasratified by the Cabinet during its meeting held on 04.03.2020. The headof the SIT thereafter wrote to the Government on 21.03.2020 that thematter had wide-spread ramifications and therefore was required to behanded over to a Central Agency such as the CBI. Accordingly, videletter dated 23.03.2020 the State Government requested the CentralGovernment to refer the matter to the CBI. On 13.07.2020, the Stateexpressly gave its consent to the exercise of powers by the Delhi PoliceEstablishment within the State of Andhra Pradesh, such that the CBImay conduct such an investigation in respect of the scam involving AndhraPradesh State Fibre Net Ltd.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A2.2 At that stage, the original writ petitioners challenged both G.O.dated 26.06.2019 and the subsequent G.O. dated 21.02.2020 before theHigh Court by way of the present Writ Petition No.6562 of 2020 andWrit Petition No.6711 of 2020. The State filed applications for theimpleadment of the Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate,since it wished to have these allegations investigated by a Central Agency.BThe High Court rejected the impleadment applications. However,thereafter by the impugned interim order the High Court has stayed allfurther proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid two GOs. Hence, thepresent appeals.

3. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing onCbehalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh has submitted that High Courthas stayed the further proceedings of the respective G.Os mainly on thefollowing grounds:

“1.Rule of law demands continuity and a new Governmentcannot be permitted to overturn the decisions of the previousDGovernment.

2. That the Government, in exercise of its executive powers,does not have an ‘inherent’ power of review.

3. That there was ‘no lacuna or gap’ that needed to be filledand that State could therefore not have exercised itsEexecutive power.

4. That Complainant and Investigator being the same, there islikelihood of bias;

5. That Powers to constitute a Commission/SIT ought to beFsparingly used even by the Courts. Therefore, the saidrestriction is applicable to the Government with even morevigour.”

3.1 It is submitted that all the aforesaid grounds are completelyunsustainable. It is submitted that the High Court has not properlyGappreciated the fact that the question was not whether the policies ofthe previous Government ought to be continued. It is submitted that thequestion was whether alleged acts of corruption/misfeasance allegedagainst the previous Government ought to be investigated. It is submittedthat the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that therewere wide spread allegations of corruption and, thus, allegations wereH

required to be investigated and, therefore, a Committee was accordinglyconstituted to inquire into the acts of corruption/misfeasance and therewas no other mala fide intention.

3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciatedthat the respective G.Os were issued by the State Government in exerciseof its executive powers and as such were not to review the earlierdecisions taken by the previous Government. It is submitted that the actof conducting investigation cannot be termed as a ‘review’ in the sensein which the High Court has understood.

3.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciatedthe fact that as such the constitution of the SIT pursuant to the G.Os canonly be said to be fact finding itself to inquire into the misdeeds/acts ofcorruption/misfeasance alleged against the previous Government.

3.4 Number of other submissions have been made by learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – State on meritsof the respective G.Os and the scope and ambit of the Sub- Committee/SIT.

3.5 It is further submitted that as such the State did not act with amala fide intention as projected before the High Court. It is submittedthat in fact the State proposed to have the allegations inquired by theCentral Agency for which the letter dated 23.03.2020 was addressed bythe State Government to the Central Government to refer the matter tothe CBI. It is submitted that, therefore, there was no inherent bias.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners. Numberof submissions have been made on merits by Shri Siddharth Dave, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – original writpetitioners.

4.1 It is submitted by Shri Siddharth Dave learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as such the presentappeals are against the interim order/stay granted by the High Court andthe main writ petitions are yet to be considered, decided and disposed ofby the High Court.

4.2 It is submitted that the stay granted by the High Court hasbeen continued since more than 2 years and, therefore, this Court maynot examine the merits of the matter and leave the merits of the matterto be decided by the High Court in the pending writ petitions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A5. Having heard learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf ofthe respective parties and after taking into consideration the reasoninggiven by the High Court while staying the further proceedings pursuantto the G.Os dated 26.06.2019 and 21.02.2020, we are prima facie of theopinion that some of the reasoning given by the High Court while stayingthe further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid two G.Os. may not beBgermane, more particularly, when the High Court has observed that thenew Government cannot be permitted to overturn the decisions of theprevious Government.

5.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State isjustified in submitting that the High Court has misinterpreted and/orCmisconstrued the aforesaid two G.Os and treated and/or considered thesame as overturning the decisions of the previous Government. If theaforesaid two G.Os are considered, it can be seen that the same cannotbe said to be overturning the earlier decisions taken by the previousGovernment and/or to review the decisions taken by the previousDGovernment. The Sub-Committee and the SIT have been constituted toinquire into the allegations of acts of corruption and misfeasance of theprevious Government.

5.2 However, there may be certain other aspects which arerequired to be considered by the High Court in the pending writ petitions,Emore particularly, with respect to the terms of the reference of theCommittee. The High Court has also not considered various contentionsraised before us based upon the decisions of this Court on legal aspects.The fact that the first petitioner (now appellant) had made a request tothe Central Government vide letter dated 23.03.2020 to refer the matterto the CBI followed by the consent given on 13.07.2020 has not beenFtaken into consideration.

5.3 In our view, the High Court ought not to have granted aninterim stay when it was not required as the entire matter is at a prematurenascent stage. The Central Government is yet to take a call on the letterand the consent given by the first petitioner (now appellant). It wouldGhave been better, had the High Court permitted the parties to completethe pleadings, and thereafter, decided the writ petitions one way or theother by affording ample opportunity to the parties before it.

5.4 It has also been brought to our notice that the petitioners (nowappellants) did file an application to implead the Union of India and theH

Enforcement Directorate. The aforesaid application was dismissed by aseparate order dated 16.09.2020 inter alia holding that the presence ofthe proposed respondents was not required. The aforesaid approach ofthe High Court, especially when the main writ petitions are yet to bedisposed of, and the request made by the petitioners (now appellants)being under consideration, ought not to have been adopted. Perhaps, therespondents/writ petitioners themselves could have made Union of Indiaas a party to the writ petitions as the decision on the letter of the petitioner(now appellant) dated 23.03.2020 would have a bearing on the lis beforethe High Court. There is no doubt in our mind that the Union of India isa proper and necessary party to be arrayed as a respondent in the writpetitions.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the ordersdated 16.09.2020 in I.A. 1/2020 and I.A. 2/2020, while making it clearthat we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case. TheHigh Court is expected to decide and dispose of the writ petitions onmerits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in our order. Considering the issues governingthe facts and law, the High Court may make an endeavour to dispose ofthe writ petitions finally within a period of 3 months from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this judgment. The proposed respondent i.e., Unionof India in I.A. 2 of 2020 which was dismissed by the High Court isdirected to be added as a respondent in the writ petitions and its viewswill have to be taken note of.

7. The appeals stand allowed. The miscellaneous applications areclosed. No order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H