VIJAYAWADA: In response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the transfer of cases registered against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, ministers N Lokesh, P Narayana, K Atchannaidu, K Ravindra, MLA Chintamaneni Prabhakar, former minister Devineni Umamaheswara Rao, businessman Lingamaneni Ramesh, Vemuri Hari Krishna Prasad, and a few companies to the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State government to file a counter with full details on Wednesday.
Hearing the PIL, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Home), and adjourned the case hearing to September 11.
Stating that cases related to alleged irregularities in Skill Development, Liquor, AP FiberNet, assigned lands, sand, and inner ring road alignment against Chandrababu Naidu and others could not be investigated impartially in the existing circumstances, senior journalist and Swarnandra Patrika editor Bala Gangadhar Tilak filed a PIL seeking the transfer of these cases to the CBI and ED.
The petitioner’s counsel, Sripada Prabhakar, argued that the PIL was filed under extraordinary circumstances, as the accused in these seven cases are now in power, and the police department in the State will not be able to investigate the cases impartially. He pointed out that two officers, Sanjay and K Raghuram Reddy, who were investigating the case and who had filed the charge sheet in court, were removed from the investigation. When asked about the charge sheet details, the petitioner’s counsel explained the situation, and it was recorded by the court.
Prabhakar further pointed out that the current administration had adopted a vindictive attitude towards the officials investigating those seven cases. He also said that both the Chief Minister and Home Minister had announced that cases registered by the CID during the previous government would be reviewed. He argued that a person against whom the cases were registered reviewing them would clearly show where it would lead. He said the crucial documents related to the case would now be accessible to the current Chief Minister, and they would be prepared accordingly.
When the court asked about preventive measures, Prabhakar informed the court that their plea is to ensure the same by seeking the transfer of the cases.
Appearing for the government, Supreme Court senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said this petition does not fall under the purview of a PIL and questioned the credibility of the petitioner. Intervening at that time, the court questioned the senior advocate, asking whether a common man should not approach the court and seek the transfer of cases to the CBI. Mukul Rohatgi argued that the entire petition was based on media reports and that even the two officers who were transferred had no objections. If they have any, they should approach the court and not the petitioner.
The court gave the State government three weeks to file the counter, disregarding the argument of Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas that the petition has no maintainability.
Three weeks time given
The High Court gave the State government three weeks to file the counter, disregarding the argument of Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas that the petition has no maintainability