Gurajala Venkateswara Rao V. Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana and Central Bureau of Investigation and Kdpil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.

WP/36682/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against multiple respondents including the Union of India, the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and a private company, Kdpil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the CBI to investigate a complaint he had filed, which was allegedly not acted upon due to lack of consent from the state respondents. The court dismissed the petition, referencing a prior decision which discouraged the use of public interest litigation to address personal grievances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813450 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Writ Petition No.15333 of 2017
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA; P REDDY; SIREESHA VALLABHANENI; K SURENDER
• Assessee Lawyers: M RAO
• Keywords: Investigation; Public policy; Unconstitutional; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT - ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADD/V^ WRIT PETITION NO: 36682 OF 2016 Between: Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged about 36 R/o H.No. 12-17-18, Prakashnagar, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. years. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its. Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 5. M/s. Kdpil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, B. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Rama Rao R/o. A-94, J.J. Nagar, Neredmet, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to investigate the crime in spite of the forwarding of the complaint by the respondent to it on 12-10-2016 on the ground of not giving consent by the respondents 2 and 3 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the public policy and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register the crime basing 1st on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against the named ?• cornpanies dt.12-09-2016 by initiating necessary investigation I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 48737 OF 2016^ Petition under Section 151 CPC, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased implead the petitioner as respondent No. 5 in W.P.No. 36682 of 2016 and pass accused criminal action for I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016rWPMP. NO: 45187 OF 20161 Petition under Section 151 CPC, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to c^irect the 4th respondent to register the crime basing on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against the named accused companies dt.12-09-2016 by initiating necessary criminal action for investigation pending disposal of the above writ petition ^ Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents: PSP SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (TG) Counsel for the Respondents: P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI Counsel for the Respondents: K SURENDER (SPL PP FOR CBI) The Court made the following: - APHC010304462016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 36682/2016 Between; Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India Rep By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.M JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2,GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP) 3.P S P SURESH KUMAR 4.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (TG) 5.P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY 6.SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI 7.K SURENDER ( SPL P P FOR CBI ) The Court made the following; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 36682 of 2016 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4^'^ respondent in refusing to investigate the crime in spite of the forwarding of the complaint by the f* respondent to it on 12.10.2016 on the ground of not giving consent by the respondents 2 and 3 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the public policy and consequently direct the 4'\" respondent to register the crime basing on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against the named accused companies dt 12.09.2016 by initiating necessary criminal action for investigation and pass such other order or orders... ” No representation for the petitioner 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.15333 of 2017 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: 3. ) If a mandamus is sought from a Court, the Court would certainly reject a prayer of this nature made by a person, who camouflages a private cause under the garb of a public cause. But once the official respondents have taken cognizance and initiated some action, the same cannot be prevented even if we condemn the action of ‘3. the writ petitioners. Therefore, we do not wish to get into the details of the litigation as between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. We make it clear that there is no obligation on the part of the official respondents, merely to act on the basis of a person who wants to settle scores with somebody. The writ petitions are accordingly closed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs. ” 4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. 6. The Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order in W.P.No. 15333 of 2017, dated 11.09.2017 to this order. SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FT SECtTON OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI M JANARDHAN RAO Advocate [OPUCl 2. One CC to SRI DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K SURENDER ( SPL P P FOR CBI) Advocate [OPUCl 4. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (TG) High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies (Along with Copy of Order dated 11.09.2017 in WP. No. 15333/2017) HIGH COURT DATED:14/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.36682 of 2016 * 2 0 FE8 2i25 | . Current Section . ^ rHEAD NOTE: ■ ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. M. Janardan Rao Counsel for respondent : Mr. K. Lakshman, Assistant Solicitor General. Counsel for 2“ respondent Counsel for 3^^^ respondent Mr. J.V.Prasad Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar Counsel for R.6 to R.26 Mr. P. Vishnuvardan Reddy ? CASES REFERRED: "