Disposed

Gora Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal

Telangana HC20 Apr 2015PIL/225/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation, the court disposed of a writ petition concerning allegations of disproportionate assets by government officials. The court directed the investigation authority to complete the inquiry within two months, noting that departmental action on pending convictions must await the outcome of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authority to complete the investigation into the allegation of acquisition of disproportionate assets within two months.

Gora Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 225 OF 2014

¶7

DATE: 20.04.2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gora Rajendra Prasad

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

And

¶12

The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & others.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

This Court made the following:

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶18

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 225 of 2014

¶19

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to investigate into the allegation made by the petitioner with

¶21

regard to the assets acquired disproportionate to known source of income against unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5, and further initiate disciplinary action on conviction of respondent No.4 in C.C.Nos.35 and 36 of 2008.

¶22

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the allegation made in the writ petition is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have acquired assets, description of which has been given in the written complaint, which are disproportionate to the known source of income. As far as the second limb of prayer for taking action on conviction as recorded by the department is concerned, we think at the instance of the petitioner, who is a busy body, departmental action cannot be taken, and it can be taken by the disciplinary authority if they think so. The department may look into this aspect. However, we find that an appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence and the learned appellate Court has suspended the same. Under these circumstances, until the appeal is disposed of the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge cannot be taken note of.

¶23

However, we note the statements and averments made with regard to acquisition of various properties owned by the unofficial respondents, which require to be examined.

¶24

In the counter affidavit the 3^rd respondent has stated that already action has been taken in this matter. However, it has not reached its logical conclusion.

¶25

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that his client will complete the investigation within two months from date.

¶26

Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by the following order.

¶27

The 3^rd respondent shall complete the investigation into the allegation made by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the explanation given in the affidavits filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 should have been considered. Therefore, the learned lawyer for respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall supply copies of such affidavits to the learned lawyer for the 3^rd respondent in course of day after tomorrow. On receipt of the same, the 3^rd respondent shall take all lawful measures for

¶28

completing the investigation. On investigation if any prima facie case of acquisition of disproportionate assets is found then obviously steps is to be taken in accordance with law.

¶29

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶30

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶31

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶32

Date: 20.04.2015

¶33

Gora Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gora Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal

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

B.Maddileti, Vs The State of TeIangana

B.Narayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Antagiripalli Umeshwar, S/o. Late Veeriah, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principle

M/s Sri Anjaneya Yuvajana Sangham Hasmathpet Secunderabad, Vs The State of Telangan

Kallathur Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

A. Gopalaiah, Sic.. Papaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Poojala Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Peter Pothula, Vs The State of Telangana