This Special Leave Petition challenges the High Court's dismissal of a PIL alleging fraudulent revision of project estimates. The Supreme Court held that factual questions on the fraud cannot be resolved in writ proceedings and refused interference with the High Court's decision not to refer the matter to the CBI.
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.
2025 INSC 798
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.7005 OF 2019
NAGAM JANARDHAN REDDY PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
The petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.338 of
2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, seeking the following reliefs:
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.06.03 13:01:33 IST Reason:
“It is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in the interests of justice, be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 7 in fraudulently revising the value of Electro Mechanical (E&M) Equipments for Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme for package 1, 5, 8 and 16 from Rs.5960.79 crores as estimated by Engineering Staff College of India to Rs.8386.86 crores by the Advisor and the Departmental Committee thereby causing loss of sum of Rs.2426.07 crores to the public exchequer and not taking any action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 11.01.2017, 29.07.2017 and 29.09.2017
Page 1 of 10
as illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and consequently set aside all consequential actions of the respondents relating to PRRLIS for packages 1,5,8 and 16 and further direct respondent no.10 to conduct an investigation into the above and submit report to this Hon’ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
of Opposition and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) from 2009-2011.
Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10
Advisor and the Departmental Committee, as fraudulent and bad in law. As a result, according to the petitioner, there is a loss of Rs.2426.07 crores to the public exchequer.
Page 4 of 10
aforesaid would have emerged and consequent actions could have been taken. It was further submitted that the High Court has considered the contentions of the petitioner summarily without going into the depth of the matter and has simply dismissed the writ petition.
Page 5 of 10
is a serious issue. In this regard, our attention was drawn to a chart submitted during the course of submissions to contend that earlier PIL Nos.28/2016, 179/2016 and 338/2017 were filed by the very same petitioner, which were disposed of taking into consideration the very same contentions raised by the petitioner at various stages of the very same project and therefore, long after the commencement of the project and portion of it having been completed at a belated stage, the writ petition in the present case was filed, which has been nevertheless considered and the contention has been answered by the High Court. Therefore, this Court may not consider the prayers sought for by the petitioner herein at this point of time. In support of this contention, our attention was also drawn to an earlier order dated 25.08.2022 passed by this Court wherein the objections raised by respondent nos.1 to 7 as preliminary objections relating to the maintainability of the present Special Leave Petition was also drawn. In that order, this Court has recorded that the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court was firstly barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and secondly, there was suppression of material facts in the synopsis filed in the present petition and therefore this Special Leave Petition ought to be heard
Page 6 of 10
on the preliminary objection before the matter is considered on merits.
Page 7 of 10
referring the matter to the CBI for the purpose of conducting an investigation and submitting a report as the State exchequer has been put to jeopardy on account of fraudulent revision in the estimate of the project.
Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10
there have been no further challenge before this Court and it is stated that only a review petition has been filed with regard to PIL No.28/2016. We would also like to record the fact that the Central Vigilance Commission by its order dated 12.09.2017, on examination of the complaint made by the very petitioner herein, has stated that it was unsubstantiated and had decided to put the matter to rest.
Pending application(s) including the application for intervention/impleadment shall stand disposed of.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI; MAY 21, 2025
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition as factual adjudication cannot be done in a writ petition.
Whether this Court can interfere with the High Court's decision not to exercise its jurisdiction to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NAGAM JANARDHAN REDDY
STATE OF TELANGANA
B.V. NAGARATHNA
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
