The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition seeking release of property attached by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The Court held that petitioners must approach appropriate authorities for release according to law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 22980 OF 2011
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...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 particularlyoneinthenature WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not releasing the attached property as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government order's further direct the Respondent 2 and 3 to release the property attached in Cr.No: 12/RCA/TCT/2006 ACB Tirupathi.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 28117 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release the belongings of the petitioners attached on 19.9.2006 in Crime No. 12/RCA-TCT/2006 ACB, Tirupathi, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. S. LAKSHMI PRAMEELA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI S. M. SUBHANI, SC FOR ACB
The Court made the following: ORDER
9
APHC010068012011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 22980/2011
Between:
D. Badrinath S/o D. Suresh Babu, and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.SLAKSHMIPRAMEELA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.1855/GHANI A MUSA (SC FOR ACB &SPL PP)
2.S M SUBHANI (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP)
3.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
4.6666/THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following Order:
This writ petition is filed declaring the action oftheRespondent Nos.2 and 3 in not releasing the property attachedinCr.No. 12/RCA- TCT/2006 ACB, Tirupathi, as illegal and arbitrary.
- Heard Ms.S.Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2
- On hearing, learned Standing Counsel submits that counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 denying all the allegations made in the petition. He further submits that the Accused Officer/Charged Officer Mr.D.Suresh Babu filed Crl.M.P.No. 11 of 2023 before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Nellore for returning the seized property and the same was dismissed on 17.07.2023 stating that the FIR was withdrawn from the Court by the Inspector, ACB, Tirupati and the Court is not having any file in respect of his case to deal with his Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. He further submits that the contention of the petitioner to the extent that the Government issued order for enquiry by the COI is true. But the remaining allegations made by the petitioners against the AntiCorruption Bureau are not tenable. In respect of the contention of the petitioner that it is not open for the investigating agency to withhold the seized articles.
3
same before the COL He further submits that as pertheordersofthe Government vide Memo No.43169/Vig.IV(l)/2006-4, dated 25.10.2008, the case was referred to COI and the COI conducted enquiry from 22.11.2012 to 26.07.2015 and submitted enquiry report vide Letter No.43169/Vig.IV(l)/2006-7, dated 29.03.2016 to the Government. After perusing the Inquiry Report and findings and further explanation of the charged officer/accused officer, a provisional decision was taken by the Executive Officer, TTD, the Government agreed with the decision taken by the TTDandissued orders instructing the TTD to impose the penalty of“withholdingof entire pension permanently and gratuity in full” besidesconfiscation of the disproportionate assets against the Accused/Charged Officer Mr.D.Suresh Babu vide orders Letter No.43169/Vig.IV(l)/2006,dated 16.08.2017.
is no 5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as there clear orders in the above proceedings of the E.O.,TTDontheseized property of Diamonds and Gold jewellery, silver articles,seizedcash and they are lying in the District Treasury since theirseizure.Tothat extent, the Investigating Officer addressed a letterdated28.02.2023to the E.O., TTD, Tirupati for furnishing orders on theseizedproperty from the houses of the Accused Officer.
4
/ To,
- Learned counsel for the petitioners does not refute to the above submissions.
- On hearing the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel and learned Standing Counsel and upon perusing the counter affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that, whatever the seized properties are
now lying with the District Treasury Office, Tirupati and the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities for release of the seized properties, in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposedof.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY. REGISTRAR c SECTION OFFICER
Cnr
MBT
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/03/2024
ORDER
WP.No.22980of2011
m
Co
§ 1 0 MAY 2D2'i
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
D. Badrinath S/o. D. Suresh Babu
D. Kartik
D. Maha Lakshmi
L. Jai Kumar
Government of Andhra Pradesh
District General, Anti Corruption Bureau Hyderabad
K. MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
