Allowed

R. Sarathbabu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Jan 2015PIL/235/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 235 of 2014, the High Court intervened in the University of Sri Krishnadevaraya's delayed investigation into alleged fund misappropriation. Dissatisfied with the inaction of the appointed Enquiry Officer, the Court removed the officer and appointed a retired District Judge to complete the fact-finding and recommend action within four months, while closing the PIL.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry Officer Kumari V.K. Saraswati (Retd. District Judge) appointed; to complete fact-finding and recommend action within four months.

R. Sarathbabu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.235 OF 2014

¶5

DATED:19.1.2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

R. Sarathbabu … Petitioner And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Vigilance Department Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶10

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶11

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.235 OF 2014

¶12

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

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by a practising Advocate of Anantapur District, for a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting any enquiry on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 10.11.2012, as illegal and arbitrary. Consequential relief has been prayed for in the form of a direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the issue raised in the representation dt.10.11.2012 and to take an appropriate action in the matter.

¶14

2. It appears that a representation has been made by the petitioner alleging irregularities and misappropriation of funds of Sri Krishnadevaraya University in supply of sweets, mixture, chicken and eggs to the University Hostels from the year 2008. Though there has been a report by the sixth respondent, alleging irregularities and fraud, necessary action has not been taken.

¶15

3. If we look at the writ petition and the prayer thereof, ordinarily this Court cannot intervene in the matter, as nothing has been shown that the University authorities should take action under the law pursuant to the

¶16

representation of the petitioner, who is not personally involved. However, when we see the counter affidavits in this matter, we think that the petitioner’s representation has assumed importance and relevance, as pursuant thereto the university authorities have decided to take action. In the affidavit we notice that an enquiry committee has been constituted comprising a number of persons initially. However, that committee has not done anything else. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officers appointed were changed from time to time and, ultimately the University appointed a retired Professor, namely, K. Nageswara Rao, as one-man committee. However, he has not done anything in the matter.

¶17

4. The statement and averment in the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent shows that the intention of the University is to drag on the matter and not to give any logical conclusion to the issue. We are not happy with this methodology and the action being taken by the University.

¶18

5. We therefore remove Professor Nageswara Rao (Retired), who has been appointed recently as one-man committee by the University, and in his place and instead, we think that a retired District Judge of the State of the Andhra Pradesh, preferably residing in Anantapur District, can be appointed as Enquiry Officer, replacing the Officer chosen by the university authorities.

¶19

6. Accordingly, we appoint Kumari V.K. Saraswati, a retired District Judge, Enquiry Officer, and she will give a fact finding finally taking note of the final report dt.6.2.2013 and also the complaint of the writ petitioner. While doing so, after arriving at the fact-finding, she will recommend action to be taken. This shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

7. All the expenses and remuneration of the Enquiry Officer appointed by us shall be borne by the university. The Enquiry Officer will fix her own remuneration in consultation with the university authorities. The compliance report shall be filed by the Enquiry Officer, within five months from the date of communication of this order. If there is any problem, it is open to the Enquiry Officer to approach the Registry for appropriate relief.

¶21

8. The public interest litigation is accordingly closed.

¶22

Pending miscellaneous petitions in this public interest litigation shall stand dismissed. There will be no

¶23

order as to costs.

¶24

Matter to appear after five months, for reporting compliance.

¶25

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶26

SANJAY KUMAR, J 19.1.2015 bnr

R. Sarathbabu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sarathbabu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Gadu Chinni Kumari Lakshmi , Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission

K.Rajeshwar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Youth Advancement, Tourism

C.J.Karira, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Abdul Khader Quadri Vs State of Telangana

Gottumukkala Ronald Raju, B.Sc., M.a., (M.L.) Vs The State of Telangana

Jadhav Avaduth Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.T.K.Srinivasulu, C.M.0.(Retired), and President, Vs The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India

Khaja Aijazuddin, Srl Late. Khaja Moinuddin. Vs The State of Telangana

M.L. Ravi Shankar S/o M.A. Laxman Rao Vs the Regional Joint Commissioner of

Bathina Amaravathi Vs The A.P. Lokayuktha

R. Jaisimha Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

Mufthi Gulam Mustafa Vs Qazi Mohd. Samdani

Smt. B. Bhagyamma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Gannamaneni Venkateswara Rao, Vs The District Collector