IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT: THE HONLE MR. DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI W.P.No.1094 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana S/o Rangaiah, Member of Legislative Assembly Pedakurapadu Assembly Constituency, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. K.R. Amos, S/o K. Rehoboam, General Secretary of A.P. Congress Committee, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. … PETITIONERS. AND 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … 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 directing the Government of India, the 3rd Respondent herein and the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, the 1st Respondent herein, under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission of India, the 6th Respondent herein to investigate into the charges of personal corruption punishable under Sections 7 and 111 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, made in this petition against the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu after declaring, if necessary, that Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as unconstitutional and further direct the Respondent Authorities to take all consequential proceedings including prosecuting the Chief Minister based on the investigation of official respondents within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate for K.R. Prabhakar. Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, SC for CBI. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. T. Suryakaran Reddy, SC for Central and 6 Government. Counsel for Respondent No.4: Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs. Counsel for Respondent No.5: Mr. J.V. Prasad, Standing Counsel. W.P.M.P.No.1419 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana. 2. K.R. Amos. …. Petitioners/Petitioners. And 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to produce the declarations of properties filed by Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu, the Honourable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, as published in various Telugu and English Newspapers (ie. Andhra Jyothi, Andhra Prabha, Vaartha, Eenadu, Deccan Chronicle, the Hindu, The New Indian Express, Ness Time etc.,) on 1.4.1999 and also in March 2003 within two weeks pending disposal of the Writ Petition. W.P.M.P.No.1420 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana. 2. K.R. Amos. …. Petitioners/Petitioners. And 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to direct the 5th respondent to inquire, investigate and submit a status report regarding the charges of financial improprieties and acquisitions b y the Chief Minister narrated in the petition to the Hon’ble Court within six weeks pending disposal of the Writ petition. W.P.M.P.No.1421 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana. 2. K.R. Amos. …. Petitioners/Petitioners. And 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to place before this Court the action taken on the representation made to the Honourable governor on 5.6.1999 pending disposal of the Writ petition. W.P.M.P.No.2222 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana. 2. K.R. Amos. …. Petitioners/Petitioners. And 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to explain his present financial position in comparison to what he stated in a counter-affidavit filed before this Court in W.P.No.7606 of 1988 pending disposal of the Writ petition. W.P.M.P.No.1419 of 2004 Between: 1. Kanna Lakshmi Narayana. 2. K.R. Amos. …. Petitioners/Petitioners. And 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Hon’ble Shri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o (Late) Shri Kharjura Naidu, Chief Minister Of Andhra Pradesh, R/o Plot No.1310, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, HYDERABAD-33. 3. Government of India, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner for Income tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6. Central Vigilance Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. … Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to produce a copy of the statement by way of an affidavit filed by him before the Kuppam Assembly Constituency Returning Officer on 5.4.2004 reflecting his assets pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate in all the W.P.M.Ps. for K.R. Prabhakar. Counsel for Respondent No.2: In WPMP.Nos.1422 and 9899 of 2004. Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. T. Suryakaran Reddy, SC for Central In WPMP.No.1421 of 2004 Government. Counsel for Respondent No.4: Government Pleader for Law & Legislative In WPMP.NO.1419 of 2004. Affairs. Counsel for Respondent No.5: Mr. J.V. Prasad, Standing Counsel. In WPMP.No.1420 of 2004. The Court at the admission stage delivered the following Judgment: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DEVINEDER GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per the HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DEVINDER GUPTA) *** On 19.1.2004, this petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as PIL after a similar petition (W.P.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. 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 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. The petitioners in their petition have made reference that on an earlier occasion also similar petition being W.P.(SR).No.74226 of 1999 (Dr. Y.S. RAJASEKHARA REDDY AND OTHERS v . HIS EXCELLENCY, THE GOVERNOR OF A.P., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS) was filed in this Court, which was dismissed on 2.11.1999 on technical ground that the petitioners had in that petition prayed to implead the Governor of the State as one of the parties to the petition. The Court held that it was not permissible in view of bar created under Article 361 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing the said writ petition, the Court specifically made it clear that it is not adjudicating upon or going into the merits of the allegations levelled in the said petition on the basis of which probe was sought. Aggrieved by the said decision of this Court, the petitioners allege that a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and the appeal (Civil Appeal No.1817 of 2000) is now pending in the Supreme Court for consideration. The petitioners have stated that the earlier writ petition (W.P.SR.No.74226 of 1997) was filed before this Court by the then Leader of Opposition after a representation had been submitted by the said petitioners to the Governor of the State as early as on 5th June, 1999 and also to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the representations yielded no result, therefore, the writ petition was filed. This attempt on the part of the petitioner, who at that time was leader of the opposition in the Assembly and who is alleged to have submitted various documents in proof of alleged allegations, ended up with the question whether the Governor can be sued or not for failure to discharge his duties as a statutory authority for issuing directions to prosecute the Chief Minister since this Court held that Article 361 is a bar to sue Governor for his inaction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This reason the petitioners have assigned now approaching this Court for issuing directions as have been sought for since, according to them, the view which was expressed by this Court in Judgment dated 2.11.1999 needs reconsideration. We may express our view on the reason assigned by the petitioners now approaching this Court on almost identical cause of action when earlier similar petition ( W.P(SR).No.74226 of 1999) was dismissed, that this Writ Petition will not be maintainable in this Court on that ground, more particularly, when C.A.No.1817 of 2000 is stated to be pending in Supreme Court. The petitioners could have continued to prosecute their writ petition in Supreme Court, but, for reasons best known to them, they got it dismissed. In any case, we heard at length learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission of the petition. The petitioners have filed a lengthy affidavit making several allegations of corruption and alleged abuse of official position by the 2nd respondent and have filed documents as an attempt to persuade this Court to issue the directions as prayed for. We may briefly summarise the allegations made against the 2nd respondent as under. It is alleged that 500 acres of valuable land of the State situated at Madhapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R District were given to L & T Company at a throw away price for personal gain of the 2nd respondent who established his own farm adjacent to the said lands. Several contracts worth more than Rs.1400.00 cores were granted to L & T irregularly without calling for global tenders and L & T in turn got constructed buildings viz., NTR Trust Building, building at Punjagutta bearing H.No.6-3-541/0 and another building which is part of Sri Venkateswara Co-operative Housing Society free of cost for the benefit of the 2nd respondent. Another extent of 76 acres of land out of the total extent 158 acres of land belonging to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) was also given to L & T, which has resulted in loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.125.00 crores. L & T was also given land for construction of Hi-tech city at Visakhapatnam at Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft though the basic value of the land declared by the Government was Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft. and the market value is Rs.11,000/- per sq. ft. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent is in possession of assets, which are grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the affidavit filed in W.P.No.7606 of 1988 on 30.6.1988, Respondent No.2 stated that he has only an annual agricultural income of Rs.36,000/- per year as on 31.3.1987. On 10.10.1994, he declared before the Registrar of Companies through a prospectus of a Company Heritage Foods (IndIa) Ltd., of which he was the Managing Director at the relevant time, that he was not in any manner associated with any industry or business activity and that there are no other companies or ventures promoted by him and he had no business or occupation or practised any profession and his income was only from meagre agricultural income and remuneration as a Legislator only during the period from 1989 to 1994. Subsequently on 1.4.1999, the 2nd respondent filed a statement of declaration before the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that his assets are worth about Rs.19,29,25,093/-. The petitioners allege that the 2nd respondent was only a legislator from 1989 to 1994 and worked as Minister for few months after 1995 before becoming Chief Minister. The petitioners, therefore, alleged that the above declarations made by the 2nd respondent at various stages before the concerned authorities would establish that he has amassed assets admittedly worth more than Rs.19.00 crores as on 1.4.1999 though he declared at the earliest point of time on 30.6.1988 that he was having only agriculture income of Rs.36,000/-. The assets are thus disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the absence of proper explanation, this circumstance would constitute an offence of criminal misconduct on the part of the 2nd respondent, therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted since at the relevant time he was a public servant as defined under section 13(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioners have elaborated further about the alleged criminal misconduct of the 2nd respondent placing reliance on the statement of declaration stated to have been made by the 2nd respondent in regard to the assets possessed by him, his wife and his son before the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on 1.4.1999. It is alleged that the wife of the 2nd respondent has acquired various properties in her name, which are directly attributable to the corrupt activities of the 2nd respondent who devised a method by creating certain fronts like Heritage Foods, NTR Memorial Trust etc. The investment of shares in Heritage Foods (India) Ltd. and other companies in his name and in the name of his wife and son which comes to more than Rs.3.00 crores, as detailed in the statement of declaration made before the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, is inexplicable. His wife was only a housewife and his son was a minor during the relevant period. The 2nd respondent had no other business till 1994 other than Heritage Foods. In any event, the savings could not be more than Rs.10.00 lakhs. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent and his family members have also made a declaration before the Speaker on 31.3.2003 for the year 2003 and the same be called for by the Court for reference. It is further alleged, even without reference to the latest disclosure, there is unexplained gap between his known sources of income and admitted assets, which, prima facie, constitutes criminal misconduct. In Part-B of the affidavit, the petitioners have furnished details about the alleged personal corruption of the second respondent alleging that the wife of 2nd respondent Smt. Bhuvaneswari has acquired property worth of Rs.10.00 crores. She owns a house at Punjagutta bearing H.No.6-3-541/0 worth more than Rs.5 crores before 1995 for which she applied relaxation of all Rules and Zonal Regulations to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. On 20.5.1997, the Chief Minister’s Office as per the directions of the 2nd respondent issued directions to the MCH to send the application of the wife of the 2nd respondent to the Government for relaxation of the regulations. Accordingly, the MCH forwarded her application. On 17.6.1997, the Government in the Municipal Administration Department issued orders relaxing all the zonal regulations in favour of the wife of the 2nd respondent, though thousands of buildings were demolished in the city for violation of zonal regulations. This, according to the petitioners, was done in abuse of the official power and position of the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that in fact the building was got constructed by Nagarjuna Constructions Ltd., free of cost as the said Company was granted one of the eight Power Projects. Smt. Bhuvaneswari was a house wife till 1994 and, therefore, she could not have acquired the said property. It is further alleged that 2nd respondent owned a building in Plot No.2A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad which was part of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative Housing Society of the value between Rs.3 to 5 crores. He acquired the building in abuse of power and corrupt means and possession of this building alone is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. Another allegation made by the petitioners is that the wife of the 2nd respondent has acquired properties worth more than Rs.10.00 crores by registered sale deeds for the advantage of her own family and these were acquired in abuse of the official power of the 2nd respondent as Chief Minister. As many as seven sale deeds were executed on 19.4.1995 in favour of the wife of the 2nd respondent for purchase of lands of six acres located in Madhapur village, Serilingamaplli Mandal. Though these lands are hit by Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, they were registered as agricultural lands exempting from the operation of the Act by reason of G.O.Ms.No.733/1988. The properties are now worth between Rs.15 to 20 crores. All these properties in the name of the wife of the 2nd respondent and his relatives were acquired when the 2nd respondent was the Revenue Minister and Chief Minister and during the relevant period she was only a housewife. The 2nd respondent having plans to create a Hi-tech City in Madhapur area, himself and other family members started acquiring properties in violation of the rules. The sale consideration for purchase of these properties was not from the known sources of assets or income of the 2nd respondent and his family members but was obtained through corrupt methods and means. The petitioners, therefore, urge a deeper probe in the matter. The next allegation of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent has appropriated Government land worth Rs.18.00 crores in his own favour as a life long Managing Trustee of a fake Trust ie NTR Trust. Mr. Sitaramaiah, Director of Heritage Foods is one of the Trustees. Mr. Srinivas Rao is another Trustee. The 2nd respondent created NTR Trust with a corpus fund of Rs.10,000/- on 15.2.1997 with the object of charitable purpose of giving scholarships to students and to provide funds and food and education for deserving students, medical aid to poor, aid to the victims of national calamities etc. The Trust is located in T.S.No.1/1/1A/1, Block-B, Ward-1- in Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in an extent of 3,981 sq. mts. Initially, it was a part of Plot No.93 of Jubilee Hills Municipality, which was subsequently merged into Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Hyderabad District Collector on 22.1.1987 handed over an extent of Ac. 6.03 guntas of land situated in Plot Nos.93, 94 and 95 of Jubilee Hills Municipality to the HUDA. The entire area was converted for the purpose of residential plots and an extent of 3981 sq. mts. was set apart by the MCH for constructing a Commercial Complex for the Jubilee Hills area. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.323 dated 29.6.1996 granted sanction for construction of the Commercial Complex by HUDA. 2nd respondent in the capacity as Managing Trustee of the Trust applied to the Government on 7.4.1997 for allotment of land. Contrary to the earlier orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.323 dated 29.6.1996 granting permission to the HUDA for construction of a commercial complex in the land, Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.474 dated 4.6.1997 leasing the land in favour of the Trust for thirty years relaxing the ban orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.634 (Revenue) dated 2.7.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.840 (Revenue) dated 14.10.1996, converting the land use from residential to commercial. More than Rs.10.00 crores was incurred for construction of the buildings in the land and the petitioners allege that this construction was done by L & T Company free of cost for undue favour shown to them in awarding various contracts. The petitioners allege that the 2nd respondent violated all principles of political ethics, ignored statutory prohibitions by abusing his power and grabbed the valuable property for his