Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8540-8541 OF 2022
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
Varla Ramaiah etc. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned interim order passed by the High
Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at
Amravati in I.A. No.1/2020 in Writ Petition
No.6562 of 2020 and Writ Petition No.6711 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 1 of 13
Date: 2023.05.03
15:42:25 IST
Reason:
2020 by which while admitting the writ
petitions the High Court has stayed all further
proceedings pursuant to the G.O. Rt. No.1411
dated 26.06.2019 and G.O. Rt. No.344 dated
21.02.2020, the State of Andhra Pradesh has
preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in
nutshell are as under:
2.1 By virtue of G.O. issued on 26.06.2019, the
State Government appointed a Cabinet Sub-
Committee to examine the allegations of
corruption against members of the erstwhile
Government. On 27.12.2019, the Cabinet
Sub-Committee submitted an interim report
recording a prima facie finding about certain
allegations. During the meeting held on
27.12.2019, the Sub-Committee also resolved
to consider handing over the investigation to
the CBI/CID/Lokayukta. On the basis of the
report, vide the second G.O. dated 21.02.2020,
the State set up the SIT to undertake an
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 2 of 13
investigation of these allegations. The said
decision was ratified by the Cabinet during its
meeting held on 04.03.2020. The head of the
SIT thereafter wrote to the Government on
21.03.2020 that the matter had wide-spread
ramifications and therefore was required to be
handed over to a Central Agency such as the
CBI. Accordingly, vide letter dated 23.03.2020
the State Government requested the Central
Government to refer the matter to the CBI. On
13.07.2020, the State expressly gave its
consent to the exercise of powers by the Delhi
Police Establishment within the State of
Andhra Pradesh, such that the CBI may
conduct such an investigation in respect of the
scam involving Andhra Pradesh State Fibre Net
Ltd.
2.2 At that stage, the original writ petitioners
challenged both G.O. dated 26.06.2019 and
the subsequent G.O. dated 21.02.2020 before
the High Court by way of the present Writ
Petition No.6562 of 2020 and Writ Petition
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 3 of 13
No.6711 of 2020. The State filed applications
for the impleadment of the Union of India and
the Enforcement Directorate, since it wished to
have these allegations investigated by a
Central Agency. The High Court rejected the
impleadment applications. However, thereafter
by the impugned interim order the High Court
has stayed all further proceedings pursuant to
the aforesaid two GOs. Hence, the present
appeals.
3. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of
Andhra Pradesh has submitted that High
Court has stayed the further proceedings of the
respective G.Os mainly on the following
grounds:
“1. Rule of law demands continuity
and a new Government cannot
be permitted to overturn the
decisions of the previous
Government.
2. That the Government, in
exercise of its executive powers,
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 4 of 13
does not have an ‘inherent’
power of review.
3. That there was ‘no lacuna or
gap’ that needed to be filled and
that State could therefore not
have exercised its executive
power.
4. That Complainant and
Investigator being the same,
there is likelihood of bias;
5. That Powers to constitute a
Commission/SIT ought to be
sparingly used even by the
Courts. Therefore, the said
restriction is applicable to the
Government with even more
vigour.”
3.1 It is submitted that all the aforesaid grounds
are completely unsustainable. It is submitted
that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the fact that the question was not
whether the policies of the previous
Government ought to be continued. It is
submitted that the question was whether
alleged acts of corruption/misfeasance alleged
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 5 of 13
against the previous Government ought to be
investigated. It is submitted that the High
Court has not properly appreciated the fact
that there were wide spread allegations of
corruption and, thus, allegations were required
to be investigated and, therefore, a Committee
was accordingly constituted to inquire into the
acts of corruption/misfeasance and there was
no other mala fide intention.
3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not
properly appreciated that the respective G.Os
were issued by the State Government in
exercise of its executive powers and as such
were not to review the earlier decisions taken
by the previous Government. It is submitted
that the act of conducting investigation cannot
be termed as a ‘review’ in the sense in which
the High Court has understood.
3.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not
properly appreciated the fact that as such the
constitution of the SIT pursuant to the G.Os
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 6 of 13
can only be said to be fact finding itself to
inquire into the misdeeds/acts of
corruption/misfeasance alleged against the
previous Government.
3.4 Number of other submissions have been made
by learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant – State on merits of the
respective G.Os and the scope and ambit of
the Sub- Committee/SIT.
3.5 It is further submitted that as such the State
did not act with a mala fide intention as
projected before the High Court. It is
submitted that in fact the State proposed to
have the allegations inquired by the Central
Agency for which the letter dated 23.03.2020
was addressed by the State Government to the
Central Government to refer the matter to the
CBI. It is submitted that, therefore, there was
no inherent bias.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 7 of 13
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by
the learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners. Number
of submissions have been made on merits by
Shri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents –
original writ petitioners.
4.1 It is submitted by Shri Siddharth Dave learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners that as such the
present appeals are against the interim
order/stay granted by the High Court and the
main writ petitions are yet to be considered,
decided and disposed of by the High Court.
4.2 It is submitted that the stay granted by the
High Court has been continued since more
than 2 years and, therefore, this Court may
not examine the merits of the matter and leave
the merits of the matter to be decided by the
High Court in the pending writ petitions.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 8 of 13
5. Having heard learned Senior Advocates
appearing on behalf of the respective parties
and after taking into consideration the
reasoning given by the High Court while
staying the further proceedings pursuant to
the G.Os dated 26.06.2019 and 21.02.2020,
we are prima facie of the opinion that some of
the reasoning given by the High Court while
staying the further proceedings pursuant to
the aforesaid two G.Os. may not be germane,
more particularly, when the High Court has
observed that the new Government cannot be
permitted to overturn the decisions of the
previous Government.
5.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State is justified in submitting that the
High Court has misinterpreted and/or
misconstrued the aforesaid two G.Os and
treated and/or considered the same as
overturning the decisions of the previous
Government. If the aforesaid two G.Os are
considered, it can be seen that the same
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 9 of 13
cannot be said to be overturning the earlier
decisions taken by the previous Government
and/or to review the decisions taken by the
previous Government. The Sub-Committee
and the SIT have been constituted to inquire
into the allegations of acts of corruption and
misfeasance of the previous Government.
5.2 However, there may be certain other aspects
which are required to be considered by the
High Court in the pending writ petitions, more
particularly, with respect to the terms of the
reference of the Committee. The High Court
has also not considered various contentions
raised before us based upon the decisions of
this Court on legal aspects. The fact that the
first petitioner (now appellant) had made a
request to the Central Government vide letter
dated 23.03.2020 to refer the matter to the
CBI followed by the consent given on
13.07.2020 has not been taken into
consideration.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 10 of 13
5.3 In our view, the High Court ought not to have
granted an interim stay when it was not
required as the entire matter is at a premature
nascent stage. The Central Government is yet
to take a call on the letter and the consent
given by the first petitioner (now appellant). It
would have been better, had the High Court
permitted the parties to complete the
pleadings, and thereafter, decided the writ
petitions one way or the other by affording
ample opportunity to the parties before it.
5.4 It has also been brought to our notice that the
petitioners (now appellants) did file an
application to implead the Union of India and
the Enforcement Directorate. The aforesaid
application was dismissed by a separate order
dated 16.09.2020 inter alia holding that the
presence of the proposed respondents was not
required. The aforesaid approach of the High
Court, especially when the main writ petitions
are yet to be disposed of, and the request
made by the petitioners (now appellants) being
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 11 of 13
under consideration, ought not to have been
adopted. Perhaps, the respondents/writ
petitioners themselves could have made Union
of India as a party to the writ petitions as the
decision on the letter of the petitioner (now
appellant) dated 23.03.2020 would have a
bearing on the lis before the High Court. There
is no doubt in our mind that the Union of
India is a proper and necessary party to be
arrayed as a respondent in the writ petitions.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to
set aside the orders dated 16.09.2020 in I.A.
1/2020 and I.A. 2/2020, while making it clear
that we have not expressed anything on the
merits of the case. The High Court is expected
to decide and dispose of the writ petitions on
merits and in accordance with law, without
being influenced by any of the observations
made in our order. Considering the issues
governing the facts and law, the High Court
may make an endeavour to dispose of the writ
petitions finally within a period of 3 months
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 12 of 13
from the date of receipt of the copy of this
judgment. The proposed respondent i.e.,
Union of India in I.A. 2 of 2020 which was
dismissed by the High Court is directed to be
added as a respondent in the writ petitions
and its views will have to be taken note of.
7. The appeals stand allowed. The miscellaneous
applications are closed. No order as to costs.
.……………………….J.
(M.R. SHAH)
.……………………….J.
(M. M. SUNDRESH)
New Delhi,
May 03, 2023.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 13 of 13