A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices U. Durga Prasad Rao and Kiranmayee Mandava on Thursday issued ‘notices before admission’ to 41 respondents in a PIL filed by YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) rebel MP K. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju for a CBI inquiry into the State government’s alleged corrupt activities and illegal decisions.
The court said it would proceed with the petition only after being satisfied about its maintainability and hearing all the parties.
The respondents mainly include Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Minister Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy, MP V. Vijaya Sai Reddy and Government Adviser Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy.
The complaints referred to in the PIL pertain to conflict of interest in supply of cement to Andhra Pradesh and its corporations by Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd., purchase of 104 and 108 vehicles assigned to Aurobindo Realty and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and in certain matters related to Jagathi Publications Ltd., and corruption in acquiring and taking over of seaports, allocation of sand reaches to Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., implementation of new excise policy and in acquisition of land for allotting plots measuring a cent each to the landless poor.
Advocate-General S. Sriram argued that Mr. Ramakrishna Raju’s declaration that he is a YSRCP MP was, at the very outset, only a ‘half disclosure’ as the party filed a petition in the Lok Sabha seeking his disqualification.
Besides, the MP’s claim to have no personal or political motive was incorrect. This was evident from his contemporaneous media utterances that indicate his venomous personal and political attacks on the Chief Minister.
He also should have disclosed the fact that he was facing CBI inquiry in a bank fraud case. Going by the CBI’s allegations in this regard, Mr. Ramakrishna Raju lacked financial morality. He also had no political morality given his defection from the YSRCP, the A-G stated.
The court observed that all respondents, whether private or official, were to be heard, and that no inquiry could happen unless the PIL was admitted. The matter had been adjourned to December 14.
