Amravati Land Scam: Apex Court Sets Aside Andhra Pradesh High Court Stay on SIT Investigation Into Amravati Land Scam
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi, May, 04, 2023: In a significant development the Apex Court on Wednesday set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court order of staying the government orders on September 26, 2019 and February 20, 2020, passed by the YSR government.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M.Sundresh said, “We are prima facie of the opinion that some of the reasoning given by the high court while staying further proceedings.
The Andhra Pradesh police had exposed the nexus of the land mafia in a huge land scam in Amravati where the land pieces worth crores have been listed down on the name of the poorest people in the state.
The YSR government had constituted a cabinet sub-committee to scrutinise decisions taken by the previous TDP regime and forming a SIT for probing into the alleged irregularities, including Amravati land scam.
The Andhra Pradesh government had challenged a High Court order passed in September 2020, staying the government orders sanctioning the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), in Amravati during the previous dispensation under the Telugu Desam Party.
In its order the Bench agreed with the Senior Counsel appearing for the State who submitted that the High Court had misinterpreted the two government orders.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State is justified in submitting that the High Court has misinterpreted and/or misconstrued the aforesaid two G.Os and treated and/or considered the same as overturning the decisions of the previous Government. If the aforesaid two G.Os are considered, it can be seen that the same cannot be said to be overturning the earlier decisions taken by the previous Government and/or to review the decisions taken by the previous Government. The Sub-Committee and the SIT have been constituted to inquire into the allegations of acts of corruption and misfeasance of the previous Government.
The top court further noted that the High Court had not considered several submissions based on the precedents set by the Supreme Court. There may be certain other aspects which are required to be considered by the High Court in the pending writ petitions, more particularly, with respect to the terms of the reference of the Committee. The High Court has also not considered various contentions rose before us based upon the decisions of this Court on legal aspects. The fact that the first petitioner (now appellant) had made a request to the Central Government vide letter dated 23.03.2020 to refer the matter to the CBI followed by the consent given on 13.07.2020 has not been taken into consideration.
The Centre, the court noted, was yet to take a call on the later and the consent given by the State government. Justice Shah concluded that the High Court ought not to have granted the stay on the entire probe at such a premature stage.
Setting aside the High Court stay, the Bench said it was not making any observations on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court asked the High Court to finally dispose of the matter within a period of three months and directed it to add the Union of India as a respondent and take its views on the issue.
State government counsel Niranjan Reddy submitted that the AP HC stayed further proceeding on two GOs on the ground that the new government cannot be permitted to overturn the decision of the previous government. Also, there was likelihood of bias as both the complainant and the investigator are the same. These two aspects are completely unsustainable.
He further submitted that AP HC did not appreciate the fact that there were widespread allegations of corruption and yet and they were to be investigated and that AP did not act with malafide intentions as projected before the high court. He added that AP had proposed to get the allegations inquired by Central Agency like CBI.Original writ petitioner’s counsel Siddharth Dave submitted that the present appeals were against the interim stay order issued by the AP HC and the main writ petitions were yet to be considered.
The Apex Court further noted that the High Court had not considered several submissions based on the precedents set by the Supreme Court.
In our view, the High Court ought not to have granted an interim stay when it was not required as the entire matter is at a premature nascent stage. The Central Government is yet to take a call on the letter and the consent given by the first petitioner (now appellant). It would have been better, had the High Court permitted the parties to complete the pleadings, and thereafter, decided the writ petitions one way or the other by affording ample opportunity to the parties before it. Apex Court said in its order
