Dismissed

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Oct 2019W.P.(C)/9973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.H. Hari Shankar and D.N. Patel, CJ reduced the public interest litigation concerning corruption in the Polavaram Irrigation Project to a representation. The Court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation, consider the grievances, and submit a report.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to treat the writ petition as a representation, consider grievances, and submit a report.

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao Vs Union of India and Ors. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 9^th October, 2019

¶4

- W.P.(C) 9973/2019

¶5

DR. PENTAPATI PULLA RAO ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sravan Kumar & Mr.Subhranshu Dash, Advs.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.Roshni Namboodiry, Advs. for R-1 & R-2 Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Adv. for CBI Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv. for R-4

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶10

This public interest litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

¶11

“(a) Issue Writ, order, direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents as illegal in taking action on the complaints made by Petitioner and other public spirited persons.

¶12

(b) Issue Writ, order, direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to take action and submit a report to this Hon'ble Court on the representations/complaints annexed as Annexure P-1 to P5.

¶13

W.P.(C) 9973/2019 Page 1 of 3

¶14

(c) Issue Writ, order, direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.l to take control of National Project for bringing transparency and punishing the persons who adopted corrupt practices by causing loss to public exchequer.

¶15

(d) Direct Respondents to decide the complaint Nos. PMOPG/D/2017/0001357, PMOPG/D/2019/0290172 and submit a report to this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

(e) Direct Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case on the complaint dated 22.5.2017 made by Late Palvai Govardan Reddy as per the Lalita Kumari Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and submit inquiry report to this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

(f) Direct Central Bureau of Investigation to take action on the 'Comprehensive Report of the Experts Committee on Polavaram Irrigation Project, Head Works, Hydroelectric Power Project, Left Main Canal, Right Main Canal and all subsidiary works concerned with it' dated 23.7.2019 annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure P-8.

¶18

(g) Direct the Respondents to investigate on the public statements made by Prime Minister of India on the massive corruption in execution of Polavaram Project.”

¶19

Having heard the counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1, it appears that there are several allegations as stated in para 4 of the memo of this petition and it is also stated in para 10 that cost of the Polavaram Irrigation Project has been enhanced to ₹57,941 crores from the inital cost of ₹16,010 crores. Allegations of corruption etc. have also been raised in this petition.

¶20

Keeping in view the allegations and averments made in this writ petition, suffice it will be for the disposal of this petition at this stage if the writ petition is treated as a representation and the same is considered by the respondent No.1.

¶21

Accordingly, we hereby direct respondent No.1 to treat this writ

¶22

W.P.(C) 9973/2019 Page 2 of 3

¶23

petition as a representation. The respondent No.1 shall consider the grievances ventilated by the petitioner and disposed of the representation as early as possible and practicable after looking to the facts of the present case. While deciding the representation, if need arises, respondent No.1 can take opinions/views from the rest of the respondents.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J OCTOBER 09, 2019 ns

¶26

W.P.(C) 9973/2019 Page 3 of 3

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Unity Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Vasu Dev Monga Vs Registrar General Delhi High Court

Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gail (India) Limited and Anr.

Anu Kumari and Ors. Vs Registrar General Delhi High Court

Suresh Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Praveen Kumar and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ex. Inspector Lala Ram (Executive) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Prasad Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Jitender Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

M/S Unity Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Prag Chawla Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Vidhanshi Kamalia & Anr. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Meghna Bali Vs Principal Iimt and Anr.