Full Judgment Text
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:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.06.03
13:01:33 IST
Reason:
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.”
2. The said writ petition is said to have been filed in public
interest.
3. The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Legislative
Assembly of Nagar Kurnool Assembly Constituency six times and
has held Ministerial positions in the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh for nearly a decade and he has also been the Deputy Leader
of Opposition and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
(PAC) from 2009-2011.
4. The Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner herein
being aggrieved by the manner in which the estimates prepared for
various works including for Electro Mechanical (E&M) equipments,
in Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRRLIS) were
revised by not adhering to the public trust reposed in the
authorities, thereby resulting in loss of sum of Rs.2426.07 crores to
the public exchequer.
Page 2 of 10
5. The Writ Petition was heard by the Division Bench of the High
Court and was dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.12.2018.
Hence, this Special Leave Petition.
6. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
no.1/State and learned counsel and learned senior counsel
appearing for the respective respondents and perused the material
on record.
7. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner drew our attention to the prayer(s) sought for by the
petitioner in the writ petition filed before the High Court. The
prayers have been extracted above.
8. We note that a two-fold prayer was sought by the petitioner in
the writ petition. The first was to issue a Writ in the nature of
mandamus declaring the action of respondent nos. 1 to 7 revising
the value of Electro Mechanical (E&M) Equipments for PRRLIS for
packages 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
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.
9. The second prayer sought for by the petitioner herein was that
there ought to be an investigation conducted by respondent
no.10/Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the illegal,
unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious actions of the official
respondents relating to PRRLIS for packages 1, 5, 8 and 16 and the
report of the CBI ought to be submitted to the High Court for further
orders.
10. The High Court has considered the aforesaid two prayers and
has ultimately dismissed the writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High
Court ought not to have summarily dismissed the writ petition.
Instead, it ought to have gone into the records and considered either
referring the matter for investigation to the CBI, or alternatively,
devised the procedure by which the truth could have been
unraveled, in which event, the fraud in the estimates made as
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.
12. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Prashant Bhushan was that the relevant documents, papers
and records may be perused which would clearly indicate that there
is a fraud committed in revising the estimates causing a grave loss
to the State exchequer. He therefore urged this Court to have a
detailed hearing of this matter so that the prayers sought for by the
petitioner herein could be granted. In this regard, our attention was
also drawn to order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court in the
present SLP.
13. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
no.13/Project Proponent contended that the High Court was right
in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, not only
for the reasons which have been discussed in the impugned order
but also for the fact that the very maintainability of 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.
14. It was further submitted that insofar as this very project is
concerned, the Central Vigilance Commission has submitted its
report. In this regard, our attention was also drawn to an Office
Memorandum issued by the Director, Office of the Central Vigilance
Commission dated 12.09.2017 to the effect that the complaint
regarding contract of PRRLIS packages 5 and 8 worth Rs.8153
crores, was a false complaint and was not at all substantiated. This
was on examination of the said complaint by the Commission.
15. Therefore, it was submitted that this Court may not pursue
this matter any longer having regard to the aforesaid contentions.
16. By way of response to these contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioner urged that there has been a grave fraud in the revision
of the values of Electro Mechanical (E&M) Equipments in respect of
PRRLIS for packages 1, 5, 8 and 16 and this is a fit case where the
High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and at least
considered the second prayer made by the petitioner herein by
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.
17. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.
Primarily, we are on the question as to whether the High Court was
justified in dismissing the writ petition having answered certain
contentions raised by the petitioner herein as to whether the High
Court ought to have exercised its discretion in granting the prayer(s)
made by the petitioner herein.
18. We have extracted the prayers sought for by the petitioner
herein. As far as the first prayer is concerned, it is for a declaration
that the action of respondent nos.1 to 7 was fraudulent in revising
the estimates of the project in question. We find that those are
aspects which would call for determination of facts or in other
words, a factual adjudication which cannot be done in a writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Page 8 of 10
19. Insofar as the second prayer for referring the matter to the CBI
is concerned, we find that the High Court on considering the
contentions raised by the petitioner herein has given its answer to
the same and has declined to exercise its discretion to refer the
matter to the CBI for the purpose of conducting an investigation and
to submit a report to the Court. We find that the High Court was
justified in not exercising its discretion and jurisdiction to refer the
matter to the CBI. We do not think that in this Special Leave
Petition, we can sit in judgment over the non-exercise of discretion
in favour of the petitioner herein and consequently granting the
prayer of the petitioner for referring the matter to the CBI for the
conduct of an investigation.
20. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order.
21. Before parting with this matter, we would also like to record
the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter right from
the time of issuance of the tender to the project proponent and
BHEL. Writ Petition (PIL) No.81/2016 is pending consideration
whereas the other petitions have been concluded, against which
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.
22. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to consider this
Special Leave Petition any further. Hence, the same is dismissed.
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
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:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.06.03
13:01:33 IST
Reason:
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.”
2. The said writ petition is said to have been filed in public
interest.
3. The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Legislative
Assembly of Nagar Kurnool Assembly Constituency six times and
has held Ministerial positions in the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh for nearly a decade and he has also been the Deputy Leader
of Opposition and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
(PAC) from 2009-2011.
4. The Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner herein
being aggrieved by the manner in which the estimates prepared for
various works including for Electro Mechanical (E&M) equipments,
in Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRRLIS) were
revised by not adhering to the public trust reposed in the
authorities, thereby resulting in loss of sum of Rs.2426.07 crores to
the public exchequer.
Page 2 of 10
5. The Writ Petition was heard by the Division Bench of the High
Court and was dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.12.2018.
Hence, this Special Leave Petition.
6. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
no.1/State and learned counsel and learned senior counsel
appearing for the respective respondents and perused the material
on record.
7. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner drew our attention to the prayer(s) sought for by the
petitioner in the writ petition filed before the High Court. The
prayers have been extracted above.
8. We note that a two-fold prayer was sought by the petitioner in
the writ petition. The first was to issue a Writ in the nature of
mandamus declaring the action of respondent nos. 1 to 7 revising
the value of Electro Mechanical (E&M) Equipments for PRRLIS for
packages 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
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.
9. The second prayer sought for by the petitioner herein was that
there ought to be an investigation conducted by respondent
no.10/Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the illegal,
unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious actions of the official
respondents relating to PRRLIS for packages 1, 5, 8 and 16 and the
report of the CBI ought to be submitted to the High Court for further
orders.
10. The High Court has considered the aforesaid two prayers and
has ultimately dismissed the writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High
Court ought not to have summarily dismissed the writ petition.
Instead, it ought to have gone into the records and considered either
referring the matter for investigation to the CBI, or alternatively,
devised the procedure by which the truth could have been
unraveled, in which event, the fraud in the estimates made as
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.
12. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Prashant Bhushan was that the relevant documents, papers
and records may be perused which would clearly indicate that there
is a fraud committed in revising the estimates causing a grave loss
to the State exchequer. He therefore urged this Court to have a
detailed hearing of this matter so that the prayers sought for by the
petitioner herein could be granted. In this regard, our attention was
also drawn to order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court in the
present SLP.
13. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
no.13/Project Proponent contended that the High Court was right
in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, not only
for the reasons which have been discussed in the impugned order
but also for the fact that the very maintainability of 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.
14. It was further submitted that insofar as this very project is
concerned, the Central Vigilance Commission has submitted its
report. In this regard, our attention was also drawn to an Office
Memorandum issued by the Director, Office of the Central Vigilance
Commission dated 12.09.2017 to the effect that the complaint
regarding contract of PRRLIS packages 5 and 8 worth Rs.8153
crores, was a false complaint and was not at all substantiated. This
was on examination of the said complaint by the Commission.
15. Therefore, it was submitted that this Court may not pursue
this matter any longer having regard to the aforesaid contentions.
16. By way of response to these contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioner urged that there has been a grave fraud in the revision
of the values of Electro Mechanical (E&M) Equipments in respect of
PRRLIS for packages 1, 5, 8 and 16 and this is a fit case where the
High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and at least
considered the second prayer made by the petitioner herein by
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.
17. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.
Primarily, we are on the question as to whether the High Court was
justified in dismissing the writ petition having answered certain
contentions raised by the petitioner herein as to whether the High
Court ought to have exercised its discretion in granting the prayer(s)
made by the petitioner herein.
18. We have extracted the prayers sought for by the petitioner
herein. As far as the first prayer is concerned, it is for a declaration
that the action of respondent nos.1 to 7 was fraudulent in revising
the estimates of the project in question. We find that those are
aspects which would call for determination of facts or in other
words, a factual adjudication which cannot be done in a writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Page 8 of 10
19. Insofar as the second prayer for referring the matter to the CBI
is concerned, we find that the High Court on considering the
contentions raised by the petitioner herein has given its answer to
the same and has declined to exercise its discretion to refer the
matter to the CBI for the purpose of conducting an investigation and
to submit a report to the Court. We find that the High Court was
justified in not exercising its discretion and jurisdiction to refer the
matter to the CBI. We do not think that in this Special Leave
Petition, we can sit in judgment over the non-exercise of discretion
in favour of the petitioner herein and consequently granting the
prayer of the petitioner for referring the matter to the CBI for the
conduct of an investigation.
20. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order.
21. Before parting with this matter, we would also like to record
the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter right from
the time of issuance of the tender to the project proponent and
BHEL. Writ Petition (PIL) No.81/2016 is pending consideration
whereas the other petitions have been concluded, against which
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.
22. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to consider this
Special Leave Petition any further. Hence, the same is dismissed.
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