VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday found fault with Narasapuram MP Kanumuri Raghu Rama Krishna Raju challenging every decision of the State government in courts. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy sought to know why Raju was approaching the courts instead of raising the issues in Parliament.
The court was hearing a petition the lawmaker had filed challenging the amendments to Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and Distribution and Retail Trade in Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor, Wine and Beer) Act. The bench further observed that the MP was elected to raise public issues in Parliament.
Rejecting the MP’s plea for an interim stay on the government’s move to avail loans from banks and other financial institutions, the bench said the court would not involve in economical and financial matters. “The courts do not run governments, and governments do not run courts,” the bench reminded the petitioner. The court further observed that financial issues and management were in the government’s domain and left to its discretion. The bench posted the case for further hearing to July 15.
Earlier, Raju’s counsel Ambati Sudhakar argued that the amendments to the excise act were made in a bid to get bank loans, which was unconstitutional. The court intervened and enquired about the plaintiff. When told the petitioner was an MP, the bench asked why such matters were not raised in Parliament instead of bringing them to the court.
The court asserted that it would not intervene in financial matters, especially those related to liquor. When the advocate stressed that AP Beverages Corporation has been showing tax revenues on sale of liquor as the government’s income, which he termed as unconstitutional, the court said it would hear the case after the summer vacation.
Drawing attention to the state of Andhra’s finances, Raju’s counsel submitted that the government was trying for loans by setting up corporations. The court said it was for the Comptroller and Auditor General and Accountant General to deal with such matters and that the counsel need not be worried about it. Similar to an individual hating an outsider’s intervention in his financial matters, the bench, citing a Supreme Court directive, added that the “government can look after its financial affairs.”