THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU
and
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Dated: 10-08-2011
WRIT PETITION Nos. 794, 6604 AND 6979 OF 2011
Between:
P. Shankar Rao ... PETITIONER
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENTSHON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU
AND
THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Petition Nos.794, 6604, 6979 of 2011
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru)
Writ Petition No.794 of 2011
1. A Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Secunderabad Cantonment (SC)
Constituency, Andhra Pradesh, alleging misappropriation of public property
against Late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and
beneficiaries thereof through transfer, lease, licenses grants etc., sought the
indulgence of the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh for registration of a
crime which evoked the response of the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court
on 22-11-2010, directing the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to register the
letter as a “Taken-up case” and was numbered as Writ Petition No.29358 of 2010.
2. During pendency of the above said “Taken-up Writ Petition No.29358 of
2010”, another letter was filed before the Registrar (Judicial) by the same MLA for
taking on record the documents accompanying therewith. The letter along with
annexures was posted by the Registrar (Judicial) before the 5
th
Division Bench,
being seized of “Taken-up Writ Petition No.29358 of 2010” and the Division Bench
passed the following order:
“The scope of this Taken-up case and the scope of the relief sought to be taken in this
present letter dated ..11.2010 is distinct and different on separate cause of actions requiring to
implead various corporations and companies said to have been floated by him as annexed in
Annexures-1 to 3. We are therefore of the opinion that this letter requires to be placed by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking appropriate action. The Registry is directed to place this letter
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking appropriate action”.3. Pursuant to the above direction of the Division Bench, orders were sought
by the Registrar (Judicial) from the Chief Justice, who directed its posting as per
roster. Accordingly, it was registered as “Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011”.
There are two more Writ Petitions No.6604 and 6979 of 2011 claiming similar relief
almost on similar assertions, and we propose to dispose of all the three together by
this common judgment.
4. Proceeding in that direction, we would like to begin with “Taken-up Writ
Petition No.794 of 2011”, wherein it is averred that Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy
extended huge benefits in the shape of allotment of lands, mineral rights, licences,
SEZs rights to develop ports all along the Eastern coast forming part of Eastern
Andhra Pradesh apart from permission for star hotels and complexes in and around
Hyderabad and other major cities in Andhra Pradesh. It is also averred that the
corporates and individuals, who benefited from these official favours were in turn
made to invest kickback amounts into several individual and corporate businesses
of the then Chief Minister’s son Sri Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, 52
nd
Respondent
herein. It is also alleged that on account of the aforesaid Quid Pro
Quoarrangement, the income of respondent No.52 rose from Rs.11 lakhs in 2004 to
Rs.43,000 Crores by the time of his father’s demise.
5. In the letter and the additional material, the petitioner furnishes information
as to the manner in which thousands of crores of kickbacks were paid to the family
of the then Chief Minister. In substance, it is averred that respondent No.52 and
his family defrauded the public exchequer under the clout of the then Chief Minister
and managed transfer of public properties and permissions, leases and licenses
favouring various companies at throw-away prices in lieu of thousands of crores of
kickbacks, paid by the individuals and corporates to respondent No.52 which was
routed through the investments made in his (respondent No.52) companies and
businesses, and it is in furtherance of the said purpose that investments in power
companies, print and television media and other businesses of the said respondent
(No.52) were made and the value of the shares in such companies grew at a
premium rate of over 100 times apparently over and above the value of the share. It is also averred that the beneficiaries of the official favours from the late Chief
Minister resorted even to money laundering by adopting Hawala routes through tax
haven countries such as Mauritius and these monies are brought into the companies
and businesses of respondent No.52 at huge premium, though the track record and
business assets of companies of respondent No.52 had hardly any achievements,
assets to its credit or business on hand. It is also stated that apart from money
laundering, as above, huge cash consideration received as kickbacks were brought
in as investments by non-descript companies said to have been located in different
parts of India which have hardly any business, income or means to support such
huge investment, and favours to individuals and companies by the former Chief
Minister are said to be traceable and linked to the phenomenal growth of the
companies and businesses of respondent No.52 resulting from a huge corruption by
respondent 52, his father and his family which requires thorough probe into each
transaction by a central investigating agency, therefore, petitioner seeks a writ for
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
6. Several beneficiaries, of such largesse, licenses, allotments, who are also
investors in one form or the other in the business of respondent No.52 were
impleaded and put on notice and most of them responded through counter
affidavits, primarily, opposing the maintainability of this Taken-up writ
petition. Some of them have endeavoured to justify the investments in the
companies of respondent No.52 as commercial business decisions and have denied
the receipt of any benefit from the Government of Andhra Pradesh or from anybody
else. Respondent No.52 had earlier filed a counter affidavit only to the extent of
maintainability without touching upon the merits of the allegations and had denied
any violation of the Reserve Bank of India Act, FEMA or the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, contending further that the Enforcement Directorate is seized
of enquiries with reference to the alleged violation and, as such, seeking
investigation by CBI is only to unleash a political battle and to gain political
advantage.7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned
Amicus Curiae were heard on 12.07.2011 on the question of maintainability of the
Writ Petitions. Among other things, there being involvement of substantial public
interest, preliminary objection could not prevail on us and petitions were held to be
maintainable, accordingly admitted to hearing by a detailed order.
8. When these matters were taken up for hearing, learned Amicus Curiae,
appearing in Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011, submitted that the modus
operandi adopted by the then Chief Minister for receiving illegal gratification for
exchange of official favours is evident from the phenomenal growth of companies
owned and managed by respondent No.52. He submitted that though these
investments made by the beneficiaries are being tried to be explained on the
ground that they are business deals and pure commercial decisions to invest,
learned Amicus pointed out that such explanation is unacceptable on the face of it,
as no prudent person would invest crores of rupees in a company, which has
neither any achievements nor any possibility of returns. He relied upon a decision
of the Supreme Court in VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI v. UNION OF
INDIA
[1]
, particularly, paragraphs 15 to 20 thereof to contend that it was a case
where huge amassing of wealth by the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh was
sought to be justified by showing the registered documents executed in his favour
as well as that of his family members but by apparent consideration mentioned in
the said documents, the wealth amassed was shown to be disproportionate and
unexplained, therefore, the Supreme Court directed a preliminary report to be
furnished by the CBI and the present case being of a similar nature where
gratification received is by a different modus operandi, investigation by CBI is
essential.
9. A note given by Amicus Curiae in this Taken-up writ petition gives illustrative
examples as under:
(a) M/s. Gilchrist Investments Pvt. Ltd., Alpha Villas Pvt. Ltd., and Alpha
Avenues Pvt. Ltd., all promoted by Sri N. Prasad, are stated to have
been allotted shares, face value of which, is Rs.10/-, for a premium
amount of Rs.350/- each, in return for an official favour of allotment of Government land, to VANPIC PORTS PVT. LTD. and VANPIC
PROJECTS PVT. LTD., on build, operate and transfer basis.
(b) M/s. Eres Projects Pvt. Ltd., promoted by RAMKY Group is stated to
have been allotted 2,22,222 shares, face value of which, is Rs.10/-,
for a premium of Rs.340/- each, in return for an official favour of
allotment of land pertaining to Housing Board at Gachibowli and SEZ
land at Visakhapatnam.
(c) M/s. P.V.P. Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., is said to have been allotted
1,38,888 shares, face value of which, is Rs.10/-, for a premium of
Rs.340/- each, in return for an official favour of allotment of
Government land in an extent of Ac.598 at Nadargul Village, Ranga
Reddy District.
(d) M/s. Pioneer Infrastructure Holding Ltd., promoted by Sri Pratap
Reddy of PENNA Group, is stated to have been allotted 5,55,555
shares, face value of which, is Rs.10/-,
for a premium of Rs.340/- each, in return for an official favour of
relaxation of Building Regulations for construction of a Star Hotel on
Road No.2, Banjara Hills.
(e) M/s. Trident Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., which belongs to the HETERO
Group, is stated to have been allotted 13,889 shares, face value of
which, is Rs.10/-, for a premium of Rs.340/- each, in return for an
official favour of allotment of land in an extent of Ac.240 at
Nakkapalli and Jadcherla Villages, Mahabubnager District, for
establishment of SEZ.
10. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that these investments are prima
facie directly linked to the benefits received by the individuals/companies in the
area of interest of their business through the official favours from the then Chief
Minister. In other words, valuable State largesse was bestowed on investors, who
had, in turn, invested huge amounts in various businesses of respondent No.52.
Each individual case, therefore, needs to be examined to establish the modus
operandi as to the manner in which and proximity within which the benefits are
received from official favours on the one hand and the investments of kickbacks in
companies of respondent No.52 on the other hand. We find from the record as well as from the additional particulars given by the petitioner in his letters that even
Mauritius-based companies have invested Rs.125 Crores in Sandur Power Company
Limited owned and managed by respondent No.52. The said investment was made
in the year 2005, the very first year of operation of the company and at a premium
of Rs.61/- per share and in spite of such huge investments, instead of appointment
of it’s nominee on the board of the said company, the personal auditor of late Chief
Minister’s businesses is said to be appointed as a nominee of the said foreign
investors.
11. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.52 has,
however, strongly refuted the said contentions and submitted that the author of the
letter, which is registered as a Taken-up writ petition, is a known political adversary
of the father of respondent No.52 – the then Chief Minister and submits that the
present proceedings are mala fide and are initiated for political gain. He has placed
reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA AND
ORS. v. STATE OF SIKKIM
[2]
and relies upon paragraphs 10 and 11 to submit
that judicial intervention in such case for setting criminal law in motion was
disallowed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid latest judgment.
12. We find that the aforesaid decision was rendered in a writ petition filed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India but the
petitioner had failed to establish and demonstrate violation of any of his
fundamental rights to seek relief under Article 32. Further, the Supreme Court held
that if it gives direction for prosecution it would cause serious prejudice to the
accused. In that view, the prayer for directing prosecution through CBI was
denied.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the fact that the State has not
launched any prosecution indicates that either it is not accepting the allegations
against respondent No.52 or apprehends involvement of several members of the
then Chief Minister’s Cabinet. He referred to STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v.
BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL
[3]
and placed reliance upon paragraphs 18, 163 and
164 and particularly, drew our attention to the ratio of GURPAL SINGH V. STATE OF
PUNJAB [(2005) 5 SCC 136].14. We, however, feel that the decision in GURPAL SINGH’s case dealt with locus
standi of the petitioner in raising a dispute relating to service of an employee and
sustainability of public interest litigation in a service matter. Para 163 relied upon
refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.)
V. UNION OF INDIA[AIR 2002 SC 350] as well as S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF
INDIA [AIR 1982 SC 149] and particularly, the observations of the Supreme Court
with respect to the public interest litigation, as mentioned, in the said decisions.
15. In fact, the decision in STATE OF UTTARANCHAL’s case (3 supra) is the
latest decision of the Supreme Court with respect to Public Interest Litigation
jurisdiction and the manner and situations in which Public Interest Litigation can be
entertained by the Courts. In our order dated 12.07.2011, we have already
recorded that the present case would fall under phase III dealing with transparency
and probity in governance as per ratio in UTTARANCHAL’scase (3 supra) and the
decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel were all referred to by the
Supreme Court in the UTTARANCHAL’s case.
16. Similarly, reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. COMMITTEE FOR
PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
[4]
was also noticed and followed by us
in our order dated 12.07.2011. We, however, find difficulty in accepting the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the word ‘life’ used therein would still be available to protect the dignity of the
then Chief Minister, who is no more. There cannot be two opinions that the dignity
of a dead person has to be respected, but that is far from saying that the word ‘life’
used under Article 21 would include protection under Article 21 post-death also. The
further decisions in BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION OF
INDIA
[5]
and SMT. NILABATI BEHERA ALIEAS LALITA BEHERA v. STATE OF
ORISSA
[6]
, relied upon were also referred to in the Constitution Bench judgment
in STATE OF WEST BENGAL’s case (4 supra).17. It is, however, to be noted that as held in BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA’s
case (5 supra), even if conditions for issuance of any writ are not fulfilled, the
Constitutional Court would not be constrained to fold its hand in despair and plead
its inability to help the citizens, who come before it for judicial redressal.
18. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the assessment of assets of
respondent No.52, which are highlighted for invoking jurisdiction of this Court are
contrary to and in ignorance of the income tax returns of respondent No.52 but no
care has been taken to verify the same. He also places reliance on a Commission of
Enquiries report relevant in the matter rendered by one of the retired Hon’ble
Judges of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the assets, acquisition as well as
the valuation of the businesses of respondent No.52, particularly, Bharathi Cements
and Jagathi Publications, are mischievously exaggerated contrary to the factual
realities and a deliberate distorted picture is presented before this Court.
19. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the figures of assets of respondent
No.52 for the year 2003-2004 and the latest figures, which are given in the letter
shows very high growth of income and takes serious objection to the figures in the
letter of the petitioner on the ground that these figures are irresponsibly given
without verifying the returns filed by respondent No.52. He submits that when the
allegation of phenomenal increase in the assets is made by the petitioner, who has
written the letter, it has to be presumed that he is in knowledge of the figures
reflected in the returns of respondent No.52. He, therefore, submits that in reality
the returns of respondent No.52 for the year 2003-2004 show total assets to the
tune of Rs.20.67 Crores and not Rs.11.02 lakhs, as alleged. He also submits that
the book assets as per the year 2003-2004 have increased in the recent years only
on account of disinvestments of shares by respondent No.52 in
M/s. Bharathi Cements and thereby, the fixed assets of respondent No.52 by the
time his father became the Chief Minister were Rs.19.43 Crores with liabilities to the
extent of Rs.18.93 Crores and as such individual net worth was Rs.1.73 Crores. For
the subsequent year also, he submits that on account of lesser investments net
worth of respondent No.52 rose to Rs.8.77 Crores, and for the year 2005-2006 it
came down to Rs.7.7 Crores. These figures are relied upon to show that before or
after the father of the respondent No.52 became the Chief Minister there was no phenomenal increase in net worth and the increase in net worth in March 2011,
was about Rs.372 Crores on account of capital gain out of disinvestments in M/s.
Bharathi Cements. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is absolutely no
basis for the allegation that the assets of respondent No.52 rose to Rs.43,000
Crores as stated in the letter.
20. Learned Senior Counsel also explained the other investments in the other
group companies of respondent No.52 and has also explained that the allegation of
any favour in grant of mining lease etc. with reference to M/s. Raghu Ram
Cements, as alleged was already investigated by the Commission of Enquiry by a
retired Hon’ble Judge of this Court and no irregularities were found. Learned Senior
Counsel also made criticism of the note submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae on
the ground that various aspects, as mentioned in the counter affidavit of
respondent No.52, have not been taken note of by the learned Amicus
Curiae. Learned Senior Counsel also explained the business venture of respondent
No.52 viz. M/s. Jagathi Publications in order to explain investments made by various
individuals and companies therein and according to the learned Senior Counsel, on
account of achievements in reaching position of No.2 in the State in the regional
print media and superior quality of publication, the investments were made by
various companies and individuals purely as a prudent business decision.
21. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that respondent No.52 became a
public servant only in May, 2009 and prior to that the Prevention of Corruption Act
cannot be applied to him. Learned counsel also tried to distinguishVISHWANATH
CHATURVEDI’s case (1 supra) from the present case on hand by contending that
the respondents/politicians in the said case were only politicians, whereas
respondent No.52 is basically a businessman. Several paragraphs of the counter
affidavit of respondent No.52 are read out where he has explained the investments
with respect to M/s. Jagathi Publications and M/s. Bharathi Cements and
also with regard to the benefits conferred on the individuals by the State, but the
learned Senior Counsel pleads that he is not aware of the same.22. So far as other contentions of the learned Senior Counsel explaining
investments and businesses of respondent No.52 are concerned, though we had
allowed the learned Senior Counsel to make submissions in detail, we are of the
view that it would not be appropriate within the scope of the present writ petition to
examine each and every allegation and to probe into the correctness, validity or
genuineness of every investment and every business venture and to compare and
verify as to whether the same is linked with any corresponding Quid Pro
Quo benefit received by such investor from the State of Andhra Pradesh. We also
feel that such investigation into every such investment could be impossible without
reference to records, accounts, corresponding entries in the official records etc.,
and that would convert the scope of this writ petition into an investigative enquiry,
which is not permissible.
23. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.20 to 25, made primary submissions on behalf of one of the investors – Mr. N.
Prasad to clarify that investment in VANPIC Projects attributed to Mr. N. Prasad is a
pure investment from business point of view and the said project between the
Government of India and a Saudi Arabean country is even now an on-going project
and the VANPIC is only a partner therein. He also placed reliance upon STATE OF
KARNATAKA v. ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL
[7]
and contended that the allegations
in the present case are not even closer to those facts.
24. Mr. C. Kodanda Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.8
and Mr. K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.32, besides
adopting the arguments of Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, submitted that there are no
direct allegations against these respondents. Respondent No.32, it is claimed, is a
subsidiary French company and as such, unnecessarily roped into the present
controversy.
25. Mr. S. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 and 37,
submitted that respondent No.12 has not invested any amount in any of the
companies of respondent No.52 and no grant or favour was ever made in favour of
respondent No. 37 by the State of Andhra Pradesh.26. Mr. Vedula Venkatarama, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.42, submits that the said respondent is an investor in M/s. Jagathi Publications
and the allegations in this writ petition are made, as if the said investor is a group
company of RAMKY group,
who have been allotted land in Gachibowli. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon
paras 14 to 16 of his counter to submit that respondent No.42 is not a part of
RAMKY group at all and has not received any benefit from the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Similar contention is adopted by Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for respondent No.9.
27. Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 26, 33, 34
and 36, submitted that the said respondents are investors in the group companies
of respondent No.52, but no benefits are granted by the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Similar arguments are made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.39, 44 and 46.
28. Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.15 to
19, submits that merely on the basis of allegation of occupying Government land
and having invested in the group companies of respondent No.52, these
respondents are roped in, though as per para 8 of their counter, they are not
occupying any land.
29. Learned counsel for respondent No.49 also submits that the respondent is
only an individual investor and has not received any benefits from the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
Writ Petition No.6604 of 2011
30. Mr. D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, made submissions in
support of this writ petition by drawing attention of the Court to para 27 of the
affidavit and particularly to the averment that the first petitioner has made a
complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February, 2009, but no
action was taken and thereafter, the first petitioner sent a complaint to the Anti
Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities of the State. The ACB authorities of the State
are impleaded as fourth respondent, who have filed a counter affidavit and the learned counsel places reliance upon the following paragraph of the said counter
affidavit:
“It is submitted that the allegations mentioned in the
representation require a thorough probe/enquiry by different agencies
of Central Agency, which has jurisdiction to investigate into all the
offences and violations of various regulations of FEMA, SEBI and
offences under Income Tax Act, PML Act etc., since the allegations, if
proved to be true, have inter-State ramifications, as Obulapuram mining
area falls under the territorial and administrative jurisdiction of the
Karnataka State where the Anti Corruption Bureau of AP does not have
jurisdiction to investigate and in any case, investigation by ACB would
be inadequate and cannot comprehensively cover all incidental aspects
of the allegations. Moreover, the Lokayuktha of Karnataka State and
CBI, Regional Unit, are already seized of the matter relating to
Obulapuram mines. In view of the above, it is beyond the purview of
ACB, AP, to cause enquiry into the above mentioned allegations.”
31. Relying upon the averment, as above, the learned counsel states that
existence of prima facie case was already noticed by ACB authorities of the State
but on account of limitations of their power of investigation, they have expressed
inability to act. Learned counsel, therefore, justifies the action of the petitioners in
approaching this Court through the present writ petition. He placed reliance upon
the statements of the learned senior counsel appearing for sixth respondent herein
(who is also respondent No.52 in the connected Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of
2011) which was heard by us a day before this petition and pointed out that as per
the written note / submissions filed by the learned senior counsel, the net worth of
sixth respondent in 2003-2004 was Rs.4.79 Crores and as per his declaration dated
15.04.2011 under the Representation of People’s Act before contesting Kadapa
Parliamentary By-election, his net worth is shown as more than Rs.365 Crores and
that of his wife at about Rs.42 Crores and submitted that this difference establishes
the huge jump in the net worth of the sixth respondent.
32. Learned counsel also places strong reliance upon the assessment order of
M/s. Jagathi Publications Private Limited,
the publisher of Telugu newspaper Saakshi, which is a media company of the sixth
respondent. The said assessment order for the year 2008-2009, dated 31.12.2010
is heavily relied upon to show the conclusions of the Income Tax Department on
the inflated value of the shares of M/s. Jagathi Publications Private Limited when it does not own any assets or any immovable property except plant and machinery,
which has already earned depreciation. He also relied upon the conclusions in the
order on some companies described as shell companies but had invested heavily
through bank transfers in M/s. Jagathi Publications. He relies upon the conclusions
of the assessment authority. We are, however, informed that an appeal against the
said assessment is pending before the appellate authority and as such, the
conclusions in the said order cannot be relied upon for any adjudication in this
matter.
33. Learned counsel also submitted that one of the major investors, Mr.
Nimmagadda Prasad, in the group companies of the sixth respondent was extended
official favours by the State by allotment of 6,406.14 acres of land under
G.O.Ms.No.1110, Revenue (ASSGN. VI) Department, dated 15.09.2008 for VANPIC
Projects Private Limited, and under another G.O.Ms.No.1115 Revenue (ASSGN. VI)
Department, dated 16.09.2008 another extent of Ac.5451.06 cents was
allotted and it is contended that on account of these huge allotments of thousands
of acres of land all along the eastern coast to the said investor, he has Quid Pro
Quo invested hundreds of crores of rupees in the group companies of the sixth
respondent.
34. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the annual report of another
investor company – R.R. Global Enterprises Private Limited for the year 2009-2010
and contended that the huge turnover of thousands of lakhs from illegal mining is
evident from the said report and that company also made investments in group
companies of the sixth respondent for facilitating illegal mining.
35. Responding to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent read
out several paragraphs of 6
th
respondent’s counter and in deference to his
experience and standing, we behaved as listeners to allow him to proceed
according to his own sequence but after sometime we reminded him that the
counter of his client - 52
nd
respondent in this petition is almost identical to the
counter affidavit filed in Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011 (where he is
6
th
respondent), relevant portions whereof were read out by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent in Taken-up Writ Petition
No.794 of 2011, therefore, we requested Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel to confine only to such of the paragraphs which were not read earlier. In
fairness, he agreed and after reading a few paragraphs, he primarily questioned the
very entertainment of Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011 but the objection
having been turned down by us vide our order dated 12.07.2011,
followed by dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.20116 of 2011 and batch by order dated
22.07.2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he fairly accepted the legal position that
that contention would not now be available to him and did not press it.
36. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned Senior Counsel also contended that the MLA who
wrote the letters, is from the ruling party and based on the timing of the letter and
its entertainment as a Taken-up writ petition by this Court, he is alleged to have
bargained and became a Cabinet Minister. The argument of Mr. Susheel Kumar
that the petitioner is MLA of ruling party and he bargained to become a Minister is
not relevant in this writ petition (Writ Petition No.6604 of 2011) because
petitioners - MLAs herein are not from ruling party but from opposition party. No
doubt, MLA of ruling party has also filed Writ Petition No. 794 of 2011, wherein
52
nd
respondent is 6
th
Respondent herein, and is represented by Mr. Susheel
Kumar. Be that as it may, we have allowed this petition to survive in greater public
interest and have appointed an Amicus Curiae, who ably assisted the Court
throughout the hearing, and kept the petitioner Shri Shankar Rao, MLA, out of
picture, so much so, we have neither sought any kind of assistance nor allowed him
to participate in the proceedings of the Court. Regarding political rivalry, there is no
denying that the movers of two writ petitions, out of three, are politicians,
therefore, their bona fides are very seriously questioned by the
respondents contending that these petitions owe their origin to the political
vendetta. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the grievance
urged in these petitions which suggests that a method was devised for a systematic
swindling of the State exchequer by parting with government land through
allotments, leases and licenses for various terms of duration, favouring a selected
group of companies at throw-away prices and by financial misdeeds involving huge magnitude of Government largesse, corporate dealings including huge investments
in lieu of disbursement and distribution of largesse, besides other benefits obtained
by the investors from the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such glaring illegalities
are writ large, dismissal of a public interest litigation on the ground of mala fides
emanating from political motivation cannot be conceived.
37. Contention was also urged by learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Susheel Kumar that surprisingly the petitioner has not made a single complaint nor
lodged any FIR except writing a letter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice after a long
delay of about two years after the death of the then Chief Minister. In support of
his contention, the learned Senior Counsel referred to page 351 of the paper book
which shows that the first petitioner herein made a complaint to the Enforcement
Directorate, New Delhi as early as on 05.03.2009 and the first petitioner was asked
to submit documents of certain companies, which were not enclosed with the
complaint. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, states that no explanation
whatsoever is forthcoming from the first petitioner as to why he had not pursued
the complaint before the Enforcement Directorate nor the record sought for is
produced by him and after keeping silent, suddenly the present writ petition is filed
after noticing that the High Court had entertained Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of
2011. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that it is not a bona fide writ
petition and even otherwise, the petitioners could have easily approached the CBI
or proceeded under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned
Senior Counsel also submits that all decisions with respect to allotment of land etc.,
which are now attributed to the then Chief Minister, were Cabinet
decisions. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that Rule Nisi was issued by
this Court while admitting this writ petition wherein records were called for and
made a strong objection with respect to non-filing of counter affidavit and nonproduction of record by the State. So far as the letter of Enforcement Directorate
dated 05.03.2009 is concerned, we find that the said complaint was not filed after
the death but during the lifetime of the then Chief Minister which would show that
the petitioner had made an effort to bring the allegations to the notice of the
authorities, therefore, a question arises as to whether Enforcement Directorate,
New Delhi could not have taken cognizance because documents were not annexed
with the complaint, and does it lack the power to have the record looked into or was it the status of the Chief Minister which worked as an impediment for the
Director, expression of opinion is uncalled for in view of limited scope of the writ
petition whether direction to register a crime is warranted or not. The contention
that the petitioners could have approached CBI with a complaint is also not
sustainable as CBI on its own cannot investigate any complaint except in
accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act nor an FIR
with the local police enabling them to investigate, especially when ACB authorities
themselves in their counter affidavit have expressed inability to investigate, as
quoted above. We, therefore, feel that the objections so raised by the learned
Senior Counsel are not sustainable.
38. Referring to the prayer in this writ petition, wherein the petitioners are
seeking consequential direction against the third respondent (CBI) to prosecute the
sixth respondent under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Prevention of Money laundering Act and other applicable penal laws, the learned
Senior Counsel submitted that a reading of Sections 8, 9 and 13 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act shows that for applicability of Section 13, the sixth respondent
cannot be said to be a public servant prior to his election as Member of Parliament
in May, 2009, and so far as Sections 8 and 9 are concerned, neither there are any
particulars nor there are any specific acts attributed to the sixth respondent. No
record is produced nor there any material to come to the conclusion against the
sixth respondent and relied upon the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
No.20116 of 2011, dated 22.07.2011, which is extracted hereunder:
“These special leave petitions are directed against the interim order passed
by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. We are not
inclined to interfere with the same. The special leave petitions are accordingly
dismissed. It is needless to mention that the principles of natural justice would be
applied in case the Court wants to proceed against the petitioner.”
39. Placing strong reliance upon the last sentence of the order, as extracted
above, he contended that in terms of the said observation, compliance with the
principles of natural justice would include an opportunity to the sixth respondent to
examine the record and make submissions to clarify the lack of substance in all the
allegations contained in the petition and repeatedly pointed out that in spite of Rule Nisi issued by this Court, the official respondents i.e. particularly, the State of
Andhra Pradesh has not produced any record nor has responded by any counter
affidavit and, therefore, implored us to call upon the State to produce the records
so that principles of natural justice would be complied with. He also placed reliance
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CITY AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA
AND OTHERS
[8]
. The facts of the above decision show that the first
respondent/writ petitioner claiming to be a trustee of a trust and owner of land in
question approached the High Court complaining that the appellant – CIDCO was
illegally using the said land without acquiring and without paying
compensation. The said claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner was contested
by the appellant – corporation, inter alia, claiming that the land was acquired 35
years back and is in possession of appellant – corporation and the writ petition filed
after 35 years ought not to have been entertained. No counter affidavits were filed
by the State of Maharashtra and the Collector, and on the basis of the oral
statements of the officers conveyed to the Assistant Government Pleader during the
hearing, the writ petition came to be disposed of by the High Court directing to
acquire the land and pay compensation to the first respondent/writ petitioner. The
legality of that order was in question before the Supreme Court, when their
Lordships laid down that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction the High Court is
bound to take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, even in the
absence of proper affidavit from the State and its instrumentalities and whether a
case desires relief must be ascertained. It was further held that in a public law
remedy, the relief could not be granted only on the ground that the State did not
file counter affidavit opposing the writ petition.
40. Placing strong reliance on the above judgment, the learned Senior Counsel
contended that the affidavit on behalf of the State together with production of
relevant records is absolutely essential for this Court to consider the relief sought
for in this writ petition, as in the absence of counter affidavit, the sixth respondent
is prejudiced.41. The State Government has chosen not to file counter affidavit nor has
produced the records. So far as orders of admission calling for records is
concerned, as per the rules of the Court, every writ petition once admitted, the
standard proforma of Rule Nisi will be issued, which was also followed in the
present case. It is, however, for the respondents to respond to the affidavit by a
counter affidavit and records, and on their failure to do so, appropriate inference
can be drawn. It is, however, not possible to accede to the request of the learned
Senior Counsel that we should call upon the State to file counter and produce the
records and as a party respondent if the State has not produced the record and
filed counter affidavit, this Court will be left with no option but to draw an
appropriate inference. We are, therefore, of the view, as held by the Supreme
Court in DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA’s case (8 supra) that irrespective
of the State’s counter affidavit and the records, the other material available on
record has to be examined to satisfy ourselves as to whether the relief sought for
can be granted. In other words, merely because there is no counter affidavit or
records from the State, the relief as sought for cannot be automatically granted and
the same depends only on satisfaction of the Court on the rest of the material
available on record. More so, such failure of the State would lead to an inference
that on the one hand State has failed to save the public exchequer and, on the
other, it appears that a free hand is given to any one and every one, even if it
means breach of law and such an inference in no way assists the learned Senior
Counsel, conversely makes our intervention all the more necessary to safeguard the
public interest.
42. Finally, while summing up, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that filing
of the present writ petition is an abuse as they have suppressed entertainment of
Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011 by this Court and the said information was
not disclosed in this writ petition. He also submitted that the present writ petition,
filed by the members of a political party, are politically interested in this writ
petition and placed reliance upon the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of
the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. COMMITTEE FOR
PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
[9]
as well as SECRETARY, MINOR
IRRIGATION AND RURAL ENGINEERING v. SAHNGO RAM ARYA
[10]
and submitted that the petitioners failed to prove the prima faciecase and in view of the
failure of the State to produce the records, this Court would not be in a position to
adjudicate upon the writ sought for.
43. Learned counsel for the ninth respondent submitted that there is no
specific allegation against his client and as such, there is no reason to include him
in the array of parties.
44. Learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent – Income Tax
Department, also filed a counter and pointed out that the assessment order on
which reliance is placed relates to M/s. Jagathi Publications, which is separately
impleaded as seventh respondent herein and the same was already taken note of
by us.
45. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6604 of 2011 make allegations in para 9 of
the affidavit on the following lines. In the year 2007-2008, the sixth respondent
created a fictitious transaction of selling 82 lakh shares in M/s. Sandur Power
Company Limited at Rs.675/- per share to host of companies viz. M/s. ZM Infotech;
M/s. Nelcast Finance; M/s. Excel Prosoft; M/s. Sai Surya Warehousing and M/s.
Sigma Oxygen.
It is alleged that all the aforesaid companies merged in
M/s. Keelawn Technologies Limited in which the sixth respondent has major
stake. It is alleged that though the take over money was Rs.4 Crores, these
companies have allegedly invested Rs.533 Crores in M/s. Sandur Power Company
Limited. It is also alleged that another 21.42 lakh shares were allotted to Mr.
Nimmagadda Prasad at a premium of Rs.650/- per share and Rs.140 Crores were
received, and in turn, Mr. N. Prasad was given 15,000 acres of land as a promoter
of M/s. VANPIC Projects Private Limited.
46. The counter affidavit of the sixth respondent states in para 16 that 83.20 lakh
shares of M/s. Sandur Power Company Limited were sold by the sixth respondent in
2005-2006 at Rs.1875/- per share to different companies, as mentioned by the
petitioner. The sixth respondent admits that he has major stake in M/s. Keelawn
Technologies Limited and that all the companies named by the petitioners were
amalgamated with M/s. Keelawn Technologies Private Limited. The investment of Rs.533 Crores by the said companies in M/s. Sandur Power Company Limited was,
however, denied. The sixth respondent also admitted that he sold 21.42 lakh
shares of
M/s. Sandur Power Company Limited during 2006-2007 to
Mr. N. Prasad at Rs.140/- per share. He, however, pleads ignorance with respect to
allotment of 15,000 acres of land to Mr. N. Prasad.
47. Similarly, para 10 of the affidavit alleges that in 2005 Rs.124 crores were
routed from Mauritius-based companies viz. M/s. 2i Capital and M/s. Pluri Emerging
Company into M/s. Sandur Power Company Limited purely by selling 32.7%
of shareholding of sixth respondent at Rs.61/- per share.
48. Reply of the sixth respondent in para 15 admits that under Foreign
Institutional Investors (FII), the Mauritius-based
M/s. 2i Company was allotted 1,48,73,250 equity shares at Rs.71/- per share on
11.07.2005 and 14.12.2005 for a total sum of Rs.105.6 Crores and 26,76,057 equity
shares to M/s. Pluri Emerging Company also at Rs.71/- each for Rs.19
Crores. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that commercial production of
M/s. Sandur Power Company Limited started in 2005 shows that even at the
inception so huge FII investment was made.
49. The learned Amicus Curie and the learned counsel for the petitioner have
vehemently contended that it is evident from the records that shares, with face
value of Rs.10/-, of several companies owned and managed by respondent No.52
were allotted to several companies and individuals, who were beneficiaries of
several official favours from the then Chief Minister by getting allotment of lands,
development rights for ports/coastal line of Andhra Pradesh, commercial ventures in
and around Hyderabad and rest of the Andhra Pradesh etc. The shares of
companies of respondent No.52 were subscribed by these beneficiaries at a
premium rate of Rs.340/- to about Rs.1,500/- per share.
50. The learned Amicus Curie and the learned counsel for the petitioner have
vehemently contended that instances given above from the counter affidavits of the
respondents show that the allegations of the petitioners in paras 9 and 10 of the
affidavit are correct in view of admission made therein by the sixth respondent. With regard to the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned senior counsel and other counsel for
the respondents, we are of the view that in these proceedings it is not possible for
us to deliberate upon the rival factual contentions. As a matter of fact, we have
already indicated to the learned counsel for the ninth respondent and the other
impleaded respondents that the scope of the present writ petition is not with
respect to involvement or otherwise of any individual company and as such, at this
stage, it is neither desirable nor possible to go into the role played by the impleaded
respondents or such of the investors, who may or may not have been impleaded,
and the entire matter, if ordered for investigation, will have to be appropriately
investigated and ascertained by the investigating agency. We hasten to add that
there may or may not be genuine investments from the business point of view and
that can be ascertained only by a detailed investigation, and we are sure that the
investigating agency will appropriately segregate the genuine investors from others
in the sweep of such investigation.
51. Prima facie, it emerges from the record forming part of the writ petitions
including pleadings of the parties that from May, 2004 onwards, respondent No.52
floated number of companies wherein Quid Pro Quo investments have been made
out of the benefits received by the investors / beneficiaries from the decisions of
the State Government in various forms like SEZs, irrigation contracts,
relaxation/permission for real estate ventures, mines etc. besides payment of huge
premium amounts paid in the shares and invested in the companies by such
beneficiaries and the money so paid is nothing but corrupt money attracting Section
3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The investigation by the
Income Tax authorities with respect to assessment orders of M/s. Jagathi
Publications for the year 2008-09 shows huge unexplained cash credit. Similarly,
huge escalated face value of shares to the extent of 35 times also was not accepted
by the Income Tax authorities and respondent No.52 is directly or indirectly
connected with some of the companies which are showing phenomenal growth and
these facts make it necessary to ascertain the role of individuals/firms/public
servants in the group companies of respondent No.52.52. The material available supports a thorough probe and investigation in all the
aspects into financial misdeeds involving huge magnitude of Government largesse,
corporate dealings including huge investments as part of Quid Pro
Quo arrangement for the largesse and benefit obtained by the investors from the
State of Andhra Pradesh and all other aspects, and keeping in view the scope of the
public interest litigation as settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to
above, we have confined ourselves to the considerations of prima facie satisfaction
and regard being had to the manner in which the investments in the group
companies of respondent No.52 have been made vis-à-vis the benefits and official
favours received by the investors from the Government of Andhra Pradesh,prima
facie we are satisfied that there are violations of the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act apart
from criminal conspiracies and commission of other related offences involving huge
magnitude of investment by local and foreign companies, some located in tax
haven countries, for which registration of a crime and investigation to remedy the
public interest which has suffered, is just and necessary by a well-equipped and
specialized agency, having expertise to handle such situations and has
the credibility. Analysing as such, the most appropriate agency would be the CBI.
53. It needs to be placed on record that the learned Senior Counsel argued that
in case the Court is inclined to use the preliminary report of the CBI against the
respondents, in that eventuality, they have a right to get the copy of the report to
respond to it. The argument to furnish copy of a document would appear to be
sound because if a document is used against a party to the litigation by the Court,
on principles of natural justice, he should be given an opportunity to deal with such
document before it is used against him but will it apply to the CBI report which is
now going to be the part of a Case Diary, because we have ordered registration of
a crime and investigation and even against those who are not party to this writ
petition? Therefore, a million dollar question would arise as to whether a copy
of preliminary report could be furnished in the given facts and circumstances but
this question need not be dwelt upon in this case because we have not taken
the preliminary report of the CBI into consideration against the respondents and have drawn prima facie satisfaction for registration of case and investigation
independently on the basis of material available on record relating to the writ
petitions. We have also made it clear in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition
No.29358 of 2010 that the preliminary report was resealed after perusal and it shall
remain sealed, among other things in view of the contention of some of the
appearing learned counsel for the respondents that in case report of the CBI
becomes public, their clients may have to face condemnation in the eyes of the
public by unwarranted media publicity even before completion of the
investigation. For the reasons mentioned in this paragraph, we have resealed the
report.
54. Accordingly, Writ Petition Nos.794 and 6604 of 2011 are disposed of
directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a crime and investigate into
the accusations indicated hereinabove and other aspects relevant thereto and take
the investigation to its logical end in accordance with law.
Writ Petition No.6979 of 2011
55. An Advocate - writ petitioner, in this public interest litigation, seeks a relief to
call for and examine the records connected with three G.Os, referred to in the
prayer clause, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in favour of respondent
Nos.7 to 10 and for a consequential direction for investigation into the irregularities
and illegalities in investment of the companies of respondent No.7 by respondent
Nos.2 to 6 and 11. In support of the relief sought, he submitted that
G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 03.12.2008 has extended exemption from payment of
seinorage fee in favour of VANPIC Projects and G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 27.03.2006
has granted limestone lease in favour of M/s. Raghu Ram Cements and submitted
further that in his counter affidavit the seventh respondent accepts that he has
taken over M/s. Raghu Ram Cements on 06.08.2008 and named it as M/s. Bharathi
Cements. Learned counsel refers to the resolution of Board of M/s. Raghu Ram
Cements dated 25.01.2007 to contend that the seventh respondent and his group
have been allotted equity of 4,20,10,000 shares of M/s. Raghu Ram Cements and
seeks to contend that even before the formal take over in 2008, the seventh respondent would control M/s. Raghu Ram Cements and on account thereof,
G.O.Ms.No.95 was issued by the Government in favour of M/s. Raghu Ram Cements
granting mining lease for limestone on an extent of 2,037.52 acres for a period of
30 years.
56. Learned counsel also relies upon a copy of form-II filed by M/s. Jagathi
Publications Private Limited with the Registrar of Companies informing allotment of
shares. The list of allotment shows allotment in favour of M/s. Gilchrist Investment
Private Limited to the extent of 5,55,554 shares for a value of Rs.19,44,43,900/-;
M/s. Alpha Villas Private Limited to the extent of 4,16,666 shares for a value of
Rs.14,58,33,1000/; M/s. Alpha Avenues Private Limited to the extent of 2,50,000
shares for Rs.8,75,00,000/- and M/s. Sandesh Labs Private Limited to the extent of
6,66,664 for Rs.23,33,32,400/-. Learned counsel seeks to connect these allotments
to various GOs issued by the Government to the promoter/director of all the
aforesaid companies. One Mr. N. Prasad and his brother relies upon G.O.Ms.No.29,
dated 07.07.2008, revising port limits of VANPIC and G.O.Ms.No.30, dated
10.07.2008 awarding 2000 acres each for the two ports under VANPIC project on
build, operate and transfer basis. However, the said GOs are not produced, but the
learned counsel has produced a copy of Form – 32 filed before the Registrar of
Companies with respect to Ms/. Gilchrist Investment Private Limited, which shows
the name of the Managing Director as Mr. Nimmagadda Prakash, who is said to be
brother of Mr. N. Prasad. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned counsel
seeks to contend that the investing group companies in M/s. Jagathi Publications,
all belong to Mr. N. Prasad, and in return he has been granted VANPIC project with
the benefits aforesaid.
57. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh
respondent has, in the first instance, pointed out several deficiencies in the writ
petition purported to be filed in public interest. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon
averments in paras 10 to 14 of the affidavit as well as the verification of the
affidavit and contends that the petitioner has not based the writ petition on any
authentic source of information nor it appears to be a responsible writ petition,
especially when an advocate is the petitioner. He submits that no source of
information or any document is disclosed and merely on the basis of downloaded copies from the internet, the argument is sought to be built. Learned Senior
Counsel also relies upon the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the seventh
respondent and according to him, the said counter affidavit explains every
allegation made by the petitioner for which no rejoinder has been filed by the
petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that this writ petition
ought to be dismissed on preliminary objections.
58. Learned counsel for the third respondent – Securities Exchange Board of
India (SEBI) – has filed a counter affidavit stating that none of the companies
named are listed companies and even otherwise there is no material before SEBI to
take action under Section 11 of the SEBI Act.
59. Learned counsel for the eighth respondent adopted the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel, referred to above and contended that no relief should be
granted against the eighth respondent.
60. We have considered the submissions. So far as the deficiencies in the
affidavit and verification of the affidavit and the bonafides required of a petitioner,
who approaches the Court in public interest, are concerned, the objections raised
by the learned senior counsel appear to be tenable. The petitioner himself states in
para 10 of the affidavit that he is aware of Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011
and Writ Petition No.6604 of 2011 pending before this Court. The basic contentions
raised by him are already covered by the material produced in Taken-up Writ
Petition No.794 of 2011 as well as connected Writ Petition No.6604 of 2011. This
writ petition is, therefore, only a reiteration of the self-same pleas and is based
upon the downloaded documents from the internet. The present writ petition,
therefore, does not satisfy the requirements as per rules of this Court for a public
interest litigation and as such, is not entertainable, as the petitioner has failed to
explain and substantiate the source and authenticity of the information relied
upon. Even otherwise, the aspects sought to be contended in this writ petition are
already under consideration in Taken-up Writ Petition No.794 of 2011 and Writ
Petition No.6604 of 2011.61. We, therefore, decline to entertain Writ Petition No.6979 of 2011 and it is
accordingly dismissed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, C.J.
10
TH
August, 2011
LR COPY BE MARKED.
(BO)
ARS
[1]
(2007) 4 SCC 380
[2]
(2010) 4 SCC 513
[3]
AIR 2010 SC 2550
[4]
AIR 2010 SC 1476 = (2010) 3 SCC 571
[5]
(1984) 3 SCC 161
[6]
(1993) 2 SCC 746
[7]
AIR 2000 SC 411 = (2000) 1 SCC 210
[8]
(2009) 1 SCC 168
[9]
AIR 2010 SC 1476 = (2010) 3 SCC 571
[10]
AIR 2002 SC 2225 = (2002) 5 SCC 521
No comments:
Post a Comment