THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.157 of 2014
DATED:23.6.2014 Between:
M. Mahesh Yadav, S/o. M. Yadagiri, Medak District.
… Petitioner And State of Telangana, through the Chief Secretary, Department of General Administration, Hyderabad and others.
….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.157 of 2014
Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The petitioner, Mr.M. Mahesh Yadav, claiming to be a social activist has filed the Public Interest Litigation for the following reliefs:
“To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring:
(i) inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 against the Respondent No.5 for the offences under Sections 11,12,13(1)(d)(i) (ii)&(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988), Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC read with 34(b) I.P.C., and for violating the rules and regulations and byelaws, Sections 12(1)(g)(h), 14(3)(i) & (ii) of A.P.S.R. Act, 2001, the G.O. Ms.
No.1384, Revenue (Assn-V ) Dept., dt. 19.11,2010, while deciding
the accounts, etc.,
(ii) actions, attempts of Respondent No.5 in violating the rules and regulation and bye laws and Sections 12(1)(g)(h), 14(3) (i)&(ii) of A.P.S.R. Act, 2001 and the G.O. Ms. No. 1384, Revenue (Assn-V) Dept., dt. 19.11.2010 and Sections 11,12,13(1)(d)(i)(ii)&(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988) and
Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC read with 34(b) IPC, while deciding the accounts, etc.,
resulting in huge loss to public money as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently, direct the CBI to investigate and to ensure fair, impartial, unbiased and expeditious investigation into the subject and pass such other order or orders.”
At the outset, we record that the petitioner in spite of having knowledge of the alleged corruption or commission of offence, did not approach the authorities to take action. Relevant factual matrix as depicted in the writ petition is as follows:
The 8th respondent, namely, Mr. C. Babu Rao Sagar, a former Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), (presently, Sagar Cricket Club), is said to have made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau under Sections 11,12,13(1)(d)(i)(ii) &
(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 406, 409, 420 of I.P.C. read with 34 of I.P.C. It is alleged that pursuant thereto, the Anti Corruption Bureau had started investigation. It is further stated that after long investigation conducted in 33 months, into the allegations of corruption of the office bearers of Hyderabad Cricket Association, the probe agency has found that the Hyderabad Cricket Association officials are not Government servants and the Association has not got any benefit from the Government and hence they cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Prevention of Corruption Act’). However, the ACB sleuths found that the irregularities had taken place in terms of the purchase of various equipment, land and awarding of contracts.
It has not been stated before us whether the result of the investigation has been placed before the appropriate forum.
Therefore, the allegation of inaction is absolutely incorrect. Indeed, action was taken by the appropriate agency and the authorities found that it cannot be proceeded under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But, the learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner says that these findings in the investigation are contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Mathew vs. Balaji Iyengar & Others and of the Kerala High Court in the case of K. Balaji Iyengar vs. State of Kerala and Others.
At the first instance, when we asked a question about his locus, learned counsel says that since the Government land has been given to the Association, the office bearers of the Association are dealing with the Government properties. We think the petitioner should have made a complaint, but he has chosen not to do so. Instead, the petitioner approached this Court. We are of the view legality and validity of above investigation report cannot be examined by the Court at the instance of the petitioner. We, therefore dismiss the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner has no locus.
The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court are not placed before us. Merely, some print outs obtained by down-loading from a website have been annexed to the petition. We cannot look into these documents as judgment rendered by any Court, whether High Court or Supreme Court. Either Certified Copy in case of unreported one or recognized report, in case of reported one are placed before us. In any event, even if the judgments were required to be considered, they cannot be looked into at the instance of the petitioner.
Hence, we dismiss the Public Interest Litigation with costs assessed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a fortnight from date.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 23rd June, 2014 PNB