Dismissed

Sri. Alla Peri Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022WP/401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting permission to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition was dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner after a prior judgment quashed the relevant Anti-Corruption Bureau.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty granted to lodge complaint under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

Sri. Alla Peri Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ALLA PERI REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ABHIRAM INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., C-81, FLAT NO. 402, SRI. JYOTHI NILAYAM, MADHURA NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500 038. (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

3 . ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, HEADQUARTERS, 49, KANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

4 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HARIHARA POLICE STATION, SH-76, NEW BHARAM PURI, GANDHI NAGAR, HARIHARA - 577 601.

¶16

5 . KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, NAGARABHIVRUDDI BHAVAN, NO.22, 17TH 'F' CROSS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, NEAR BMTC BUS DEPOT, BANGALORE - 560 038. REP. BY ITS MANAGAING DIRECTOR

¶17

6 . CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGARE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶18

7 . GUJARAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF GUJARAT UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, 6TH BLOCK, SECTOR-11, G.H. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR-382 011. REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 8 . M/S. EIFFIL CONSTRUCTION 13, FIRST FLOOR, BHAVAWATI CHAMBERS, NIKOL ROAD, THAKKARNAGAR, AHMEDABAD - 382 350, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, C. A. MANISH AGRAWAL.

¶19

9 . M/S. SHAH TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED CTS NO. 293-4/4, HIREMATH BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE ROAD, SHANTI COLONY, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI - 580 021. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶20

¶21

10 . M/S. P. C. SNEHAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., APPT. 10, MAHADEVNAGAR SOCIETY, LANE-5, NEAR SARDAR PATEL STATUE, NARANPURA, AMDAVAD - 380 014, GUJARAT. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1-R2 & R4, SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. ABHINAV.R, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6. SRI. SUBRAMANYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R9, R7 & R10 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 20.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU TO THE R-3 REJECTING THE PERMISSION SOUGHT BY THE R-3 TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 988 AGAINST R-8 AND 10 AND AGAINST THE OFFICERS OF R-5, 6 AND 7 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is disposed off as withdrawn in terms of

¶28

the Memo dated 05.09.2022, which reads as under:

¶29

" The above writ petition was filed seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to consider the complaint made by the Petitioner to the 3rd respondent, inter alia also sought to question the rejection of sanction sought by 3rd Respondent to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 and also against Respondents 8 and 10.

¶30

¶31

That by virtue of the judgement rendered by the division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.19386/2016(GM-RES) and connected writ petitions, the very constitution of Anti Corruption Bureau stands quashed and hence, the compliant made to the said Authority is of no consequence.

¶32

The petitioner submits that in view of the above, the petitioner does not press the above writ petition and the same may be dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to lodge complaint under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

¶33

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition as not pressed and further grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue its complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayukta under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, in the interest of justice and equity ."

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri. Alla Peri Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Alla Peri Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Prabhakar Dixit Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kodamanthaya Daivasthana Yekkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukkamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthi S Vs Shrinivas Hatwar

Sri a Prabhakar Deekshit Vs a Rajendra Prasad

M/S Meltronics Systemtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director