IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 6249 OF 2008 Between: P.N.V Prasad S/o.P.Sri Krishna Murthy R/o.Plot No.26, Pragathi Nagar Colony Yousfguda Post, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The Union of India of personnel, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi 2) The State of A.P, G.A.D rep.by its Principal Secretary Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3) The Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI Head Quarters, New Delhi Rep.by its Director 4) The A.P.Vigilance Commission, North Wing 'H"Block Secretariat Hyderabad 500022 Rep.by its Secretary 5) The Anti Corruption Bureau State of A.P Hyderabad rep.by its Director 6) The Crime Investigation Department State of A.P Hyderabad Rep.by its Director 7) Sri Ramachandra Samal I.A.S Former Viglance Commissioner A.P Viglance Commission, R /o.Flat No.8 A.W.H.O Colony Gunrock Enclave Sec-Bad 8) Smt K.Ratna Prabha I.A.S Principal Secretary Public Enterprise Department, Room No.431 A D Blok 3rd Floor AP Secretariat Hyd 9) Sri K Jana Reddy Minister for Home Department, Govt of A.P Secretariat, Saifabad Hyd 10) Sri K.Jana Reddy Minister for Home Department Govt of A.P Secretariat, Saifabad Hyd ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in failing to give effect to the recommendations made by the A.P Vigilance commissioner Sri Ramachandra Samal in connections with the case against public servants including members of All India services who are found to have violated various acts and Rules by acts of corruption misconduct or lack of integrity or other kinds of malapratices of misdemeanour as illegal unjust arbitrary discriminatory colourable exercise of power unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the A.P Vigilance commission vide G.O.Ms No.421 GAD 3- 8-1993 and it has effect of nullifying the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in its entirety and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith give effect to the recommendations made by the A.P Vigilance commissioner Sri Ramachandra Samal in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. RAMACANDRA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 & 7: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.T. NIRANJAN REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Counsel for Respondent No.5: MR. V. RAVIKARAN RAO, STANDING COUNSEL FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU Counsel for Respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: O R D E R: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. This is a public interest litigation praying for an order to the effect that action be taken in pursuance of a right-up to the Press by former Vigilance Commissioner Shri Ramachandra Samal – respondent No.8 in the petition having a head-note as “My Years as Vigilance Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh”. 2. The petitioner, an acute politician, has placed the afore-stated report given by respondent No.8, who had worked as a Vigilance Commissioner in pursuance of his appointment made under G.O.Ms.No.421, General Administration Department, dated 03.8.1993. 3. Respondent No.8 had performed his duties as a Vigilance Commissioner from 07.9.2004 to 07.9.2007. In the afore-stated report, respondent No.8 has given certain details with regard to irregularities and illegalities which he had found when he was performing his duties as Vigilance Commissioner. It is worth noticing that the afore-stated report was published by him a few days after his retirement and the said report contains allegations against several officers. 4. The prayer in the petition is that the State of Andhra Pradesh be directed to look into the said report and take appropriate action against the officers named in the report for the alleged illegalities committed by them. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Shri S. Ramachandra Rao appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a Vigilance Commissioner is appointed to see that corruption is curbed and when a retired officer who had held an important post of Vigilance Commissioner has given a report containing details about the irregularities and illegalities committed by several officers, it becomes the bounden duty of the State to take action against the concerned officers. It has been submitted by him that no action has been taken by the State in pursuance of the afore-stated report, which was published by respondent No.8 somewhere in September, 2007. 6. Learned Senior Advocate has taken us through the contents of the report and has brought to our notice that the officers, who had committed serious illegalities, have not been punished so far and, therefore, the State must take action against the officers referred to in the said report. 7. Shri Ramachandra Rao has relied on the judgment delivered in the case of D. Satyanarayana v. N.T. Rama Rao[1] to substantiate his case to the effect that the petitioner has locus standi to file such a petition. 8. In pursuance of an advance copy of the petition being served upon the State, the learned Advocate General has appeared for the State and has submitted that respondent No.8, who got published his right-up in the Press, did not do the needful when he had held the office of Vigilance Commissioner and only after his retirement, he has written the article, which has been described by him as a ‘monograph’. It has been submitted by him that respondent No.8 was appointed as a Vigilance Commissioner in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.421, dated 03.8.1993 and he held the said office from 07.9.2004 to 07.9.2007. 9. It has been further submitted by him that while respondent No.8 was holding the office of Vigilance Commissioner, he had made certain recommendations for taking action against some officers and all recommendations which are worth taking action, had been acted upon by the State. It has been submitted by him that in 87% of cases, the advice of respondent No.8 was accepted whereas in 13% of cases, his advice was not accepted. It has been further submitted by him that at the relevant time, respondent No.8 ought to have referred the cases, wherein no action was taken by the government, to the government in General Administration Department, but for the reasons best known to respondent No.8, he did not act as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.421, but after his retirement, he gave the monograph, which has been referred to in the petition. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned Advocate General that when the monograph of respondent No.8 was published and was made known to the public that in certain matters the State had not taken action against the concerned officers, though respondent No.8 had not drawn attention of the State to the alleged illegalities committed by certain officers, by G.O.Rt.No.6001, General Administration (Spl.C) Department, dated 22.9.2007, the State has constituted a committee to look into the allegations made by respondent No.8 against the officers of the State and make suggestions to the government. The members of the committee are as under: 1) Chief Secretary to the Government – Chairman 2) The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau – Member 3) The Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement – Member 4) The Principal Secretary to Government (Poll) – Member and Convener 11. According to him, the matter is under consideration of the committee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State has not taken any action in pursuance of the monograph. He has referred to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushum Lata v. Union of India[2] to submit that the petition, which is in the form of public interest litigation, is not maintainable. 12. We have heard the learned advocates at length. We have noted the fact that respondent No.8 has published the report after about a week of his retirement. The report is very comprehensive and respondent No.8 has made serious allegations against several officers of the State. 13. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.8 was appointed as a Vigilance Commissioner in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.421 issued by General Administration Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh, which pertains to appointment of Vigilance Commissioner, on 03.8.1993. Clause (xvi) of paragraph 6 of the said G.O. reads as under: 6. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Commission: … … … (xvi) the Commission will submit an annual report to the Government in the General Administration (SC.D) Department about its activities drawing particular attention to any recommendations made by it, which had not been accepted and acted upon and the report together with a memorandum explaining the reasons for non-acceptance of any recommendations of the Commission will be laid by the General Administration Department before the State Legislature.” 14. Upon perusal of the afore-stated clause, it is clear that if any recommendation made by the Commission is not accepted and acted upon by the State Government, the Commission has to report the same to the General Administration (SC.D) Department and the said report along with a memorandum is to be laid before the State Legislature by the General Administration Department. If respondent No.8 genuinely believed at the relevant time that the recommendations made by him were wrongly not accepted by the State, as per paragraph 6 (xvi) of G.O.Ms.No.421, he ought to have seen that the recommendations not accepted by the government were placed before the State Legislature through the General Administration Department. For the reasons best known to him, respondent No.8 did not do so. 15. It is also pertinent to note that only within a week after his retirement, the afore-stated monograph was published by respondent No.8. The said ‘monograph’ or ‘write-up’ was not submitted by respondent No.8 in his official capacity as a Vigilance Commissioner, but as it was published only after his retirement, it cannot be considered as a report of the Vigilance Commissioner. Upon perusal of the said monograph, it appears that wild allegations have been leveled against a good number of officers. If, according to respondent No.8, the allegations are really very serious, he ought to have acted as per Paragraph 6 (xvi) of G.O.Ms.No.421, which has been reproduced hereinabove. 16. It is an admitted fact that the State has already constituted a committee consisting of highly placed officers of the State so as to look into the unaccepted recommendations referred to in the monograph published by respondent No.8. Thus, it cannot be said that the State has not taken any action in pursuance of the afore-stated monograph. 17. It is not obligatory on the part of the State to accept all recommendations which may be made by the Vigilance Commission. As stated by the learned Advocate General, the State has already accepted 87% of the recommendations made by the Commission and, therefore, it also cannot be said that the State has not acted properly. 18. Be that as it may, the State has already constituted a committee to look into the averments and allegations made in the monograph and, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the State has turned a blind eye at the report. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April , 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] AIR 1988 AP 144 [2] (2006) 6 SCC 180