VIJAYAWADA: Supporting the single judge directing the Finance Department to submit details of the bills received by it from other departments in an affidavit form, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal (LPA), stating that it was not qualified for hearing.
Hearing the LPA filed by Special Chief Secretary (Finance) SS Rawat challenging the directions of the single judge, a division bench comprising Justice U Durgaprasad Rao and Justice G Ramakrishna Prasad, directed Rawat to submit the details to the single judge in a sealed cover.
Puvvada Venkata Siva Prasad filed a petition seeking the High Court to direct the government for clearing the bills pertaining to the works done in Repalle of Guntur district (now Bapatla). Taking up the petition, Justice Battu Devanand directed the Finance Department to clear the bill in four weeks.
Later, Siva Prasad filed a contempt of court petition stating that the court order was not implemented and bills were not cleared. He made Special Chief Secretary (Finance) SS Rawat as a respondent in the case. Hearing the petition, the Judge summoned Rawat to appear before the court in person.
Following the court direction, Rawat submitted to the court that bills received by the department are cleared through CMFS on the basis of priority. However, the Judge was not satisfied with the answer and observed that bills should be cleared on first come first served basis and the same is not being followed by the department. He sought details of the bills for the financial year 2021-22 from certain departments.
In the LPA filed, Rawat's counsel V Ashok Ram said seeking details of the bills received by the department is not under the case purview and has no relation to it. Following it, a division bench, headed by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, issued an interim stay, Ashok Ram explained.
Appearing for Siva Prasad, advocate Vasireddy Prabhunath said the LPA filed by Rawat was not eligible for hearing. He said no directions were issued, but details of bills were sought in the form of affidavit.
After hearing arguments of both sides, the bench stated that as per the Supreme Court directions, the LPA cannot be allowed in case of routine directions and those not affecting the rights of the parties involved. The present case comes under these two categories.
Hence, the LPA cannot be allowed. Meanwhile, the contempt of court petition filed by Siva Prasad once again came up for hearing before Judge B Devanand, who adjourned hearing for two weeks.