- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD W.P. No. OF 2011 Between Y. S.Vijaya W/o late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy Aged about 55 years , Member of Legislative Assembly Honourary President, YSR Congress Party R/o Bakarapeta, Pulivendula Y.S. R. Kadapa District …. Petitioner And 1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 2. The State of A.P. Rep by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 3 . The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4. The Central Bureau of Investigation rep by its Director, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi. 5. The Enforcement Directorate rep.by its Director 6 th floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi – 110 003 6. The Director General of Police A.P. Hyderabad 7. The Securities Exchange Board of India Plot No C4-A. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 rep by its Chairman 8. Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu S/o N. Kharjura Naidu Aged about 61 years, M.L.A, R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 9. Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari W/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 55 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. OF 2011
Between
Y. S.Vijaya W/o late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy Aged about 55 years , Member of Legislative Assembly Honourary President, YSR Congress Party R/o Bakarapeta, Pulivendula Y.S. R. Kadapa District …. Petitioner And
1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The State of A.P. Rep by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 3 . The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4. The Central Bureau of Investigation rep by its Director, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi. 5. The Enforcement Directorate rep.by its Director 6th floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi – 110 003
6. The Director General of Police A.P. Hyderabad 7. The Securities Exchange Board of India Plot No C4-A. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 rep by its Chairman 8. Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu S/o N. Kharjura Naidu Aged about 61 years, M.L.A, R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 9. Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari W/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 55 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
- 2 -
10. Sri N. Lokesh S/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 28 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 11 . Sri Ch. Ramoji Rao S/o Venkata Subba Rao Kartha of HUF. Aged about 75 years Chairman’s Residennce, Ramoji Film City, Anajpur, R.R. District, Hyderabad – 501 512 12. Ushodaya enterprises Private Limited Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by Sri Ch.Ramoji Rao, Kartha of HUF 13. M/s. Heritage Foods (India) Limited 6-1-541/C, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082 Rep by its Managing Director Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari 14. Mr. Ahobala Rao S/o P.V. Subba Rao Aged about 51 years Occ. Business Plot No. 305A, Road No. 25 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
15. Sri V. Nagaraja Naidu S/o Rama Naidu Aged : Major, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 1178, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
16. Sri Yelamanchili Satyanarayana Chowdhary S/o Yelamanchili Janardhana Rao, aged about 50 years R/o Plot No. 29, Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 17. Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Limited 1-7-70, Madhu Complex, Jubileepura Khammam – 507 003, Rep.by its Founder Sri Nama Nageswara Rao. 18 . Maganti Rajababu alias Murali Mohan S/o Maganti Madhava Rao, aged : Major , Occ. Business R/o A14, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
19. Sri Karnati Venkateswara Rao S/o Kotaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ. Chairman, M/s. Kakinada Sea Ports Limited, 8-2-418, Meenakshi House, 3rd floor, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034
20. Sri Chintakunta Munuswamy Ramesh S/o Munuswamy Naidu, Aged : Major, Occ. Chairman, Rithwik group of Companies , 8-2-269/S/91/B, Road No. 2, Sagar Society Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34
… Respondents
- 3 -
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER
I, Smt. Y.S. Vijaya, W/o late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, aged
about 55 years Occ. Member of Legislative Assembly, Pulivendula
b. Foreign currency transactions were carried out in a Sub-
Contracting company which need a thorough verification as
foreign exchange outflow has been shown as below:
YEAR Rs in Cr 2004-05 3.89 2005-06 3.13 2006-07 9.34 2007-08 5.86 2008-09 6.31
c. By the year 2009 when the Elections for the AP State Assembly
were conducted, enormous amounts of cash balances were
accumulated and a lot of cash expenses were booked running into
Crores of Rupees. In view of this, the Hon’ble Court may direct the
investigation of the affairs of Rithwik Projects Private Limited to
unearth the ill-gotten money of Sri Chandra Babu Naidu.
22. The IMG MoU and the Rao Brothers
a. The Government of A.P. headed by Mr.Chandrababu Naidu as
the Chief Minister of the State entered into a MoU on 9.8.2003
with IMG, a company registered under the Companies Act,
1956 incorporated by Mr.Ahobala Rao and Mr.Prabhakara
Rao for transfer of 855 Acres of land and to develop Stadia in
Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District. Of this, 400 Acres of
land was at the University of Hyderabad, to develop, own and
- 71 -
operate sports academies and do all lawful business, and
another 450 Acres of land in Sy.No. 99/1 at Mamidipalli was
for extensions of facilities and activities relevant to its sporting
academies. A further 1(one) to 5 (five) acres of land on the
main road of Banjara Hills was offered to establish its head
office and to do all lawful business. The terms of this MoU
clearly indicate that the invaluable public property and lands
were provided to be alienated without there being any control of
the Government in regard thereto. The said company was
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 5.8.2003 with a
paid up share capital of Rs.1.00 (ONE) Lakh. Of this, 999
shares of Rs 100/- denomination were held by Mr.Ahobala Rao
and one share by his brother Mr.Prabhakar Rao.
b. It is interesting to note that these very 2 brothers were earlier
engaged by Mr.Naidu in the Kuppam Project in his own
Assembly constituency of Chittor. Mr.Ahobala Rao is a close
associate and confidante of Mr.Naidu since 1994 according to
the print and electronic media. He acted hand in glove with
Mr.Naidu, and since the entrustment of the Kuppam Project to
the Rao brothers, they became very close to Mr.Naidu. IMG
did not even have a proposed office or address to function at the
time of incorporation. In the Memorandum of Association
submitted to the Registrar of companies, the registered office
address was shown as the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.
According to the MoU the 400 Acres of the lands agreed to be
transferred to IMG were part of the University of Hyderabad
Campus which is serving the best interests of the State and the
- 72 -
General public. It is a prestigious institution imparting several
courses to the students and conducting research studies in
various subjects. The other block of land was an extent of 450
Acres near the proposed Shamshabad International Airport
which has now become very prime and valuable after the
commencement of International Airport.
c. The Stadia promised to be conveyed under the MoU were
recently developed, spending nearly 125 Crores of Rupees. The
Government further agreed to pass on several concessions on
Tax, Power, Water and sewerage tariffs in addition to the
concessions that are available to the educational institutions in
the State, under clause 2(XV) of the MoU.
d. The terms of the MoU were settled in such a way that even
when the State in exercise of its legislative powers annuls the
deal, the Rao brothers were provided protective clauses to
enforce damages against the State.
e. Yet another facet of the MoU is clause 2(II)(ii) and Annexure-5
of the MoU. According to the said clause all the existing stadia
in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy district shall be leased out to
IMG (Maintenance grant of Rs. 2.5 Crores payable by the
landlord, the State) for a period not less than 45 years with the
option to IMG to purchase all such properties at the price
deduced according to the formula in Annexure-5 of the MoU.
According to Annexure -5 the price of the Property shall be the
basic value of the property around the Stadia as on the date
immediately prior to the date of the MoU (9.8.2003) minus (-)
expenditure incurred by IMG towards the maintenance and
- 73 -
upkeep (MU) and the depreciation on the buildings. In the
course of 45 years lease period the value of the buildings will
become negligible. In this regard, when elections were held in
2004 and Mr.Naidu was a caretaker Chief Minister of the State,
he ensured that the State Government executed a hurried sale
deed dated 10.2.2004 conveying 400 Acres of land in Sy.No.25
Kancha Gachchibowli village to IMG. It is respectfully
submitted that the entire transaction was conducted with
collusive haste and speed with the sole aim of conferring
pecuniary and other benefits to the Rao brothers, thereby
depriving the State and its people of the fruits of
disposal/alienation of State largesse. The entire transaction is
unconscionable and was a result of a conspiracy hatched by
Mr.Naidu and the Rao brothers with the connivance of the
Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Youth, Tourism &
Culture, Mrs.Chandana Khan.
f. After the general elections in the year 2004, a review of the
same was directed and having regard to the clear compromise
with public interest and the loss to the State, the Government
issued an ordinance, which was later enacted as the A.P.
Government Property (Preservation, Protection and
Resumption) Act, 2006 to nullify the above referred transaction
between the State and IMG. This legislation was challenged by
IMG in W.P. No. 24781/2006 and the matter is pending
resolution before this Hon’ble Court.
g. According to the counter affidavit dated 01.02.2007 filed in the
above pending matter by Sri. J.R.Anand, the subsequent
- 74 -
Principal Secretary to Government, Youth, Tourism and
Culture Department, in the following sequence, the entire
transaction was completed, with sinister intent and motive
underpinning every movement of the transaction:
i. A note file bearing No. 111080/S1/03 was moved by the
Prl. Secretary YAT&C Dept on 06.08.2003 for approval
of the Draft MOU.
ii. Four Ministers of the State Cabinet of the then
Government of Mr. N.Chandrababu Naidu and the then
Chief Secretary of the State approved the note file
(MOU) on the same day and the Chief Minister approved
the note file on 08.08.2003 with an endorsement to place
the file in the next cabinet meeting for approval.
iii. The MoU was clandestinely signed in haste on
09.08.2003 by the then Prl. Secretary YAT&C Dept
Smt.Chandana Khan on behalf of the State Government
without even placing the same before the cabinet for
approval. Therefore, from conception to actual
completion, the entire transaction was done in under 3
days.
iv. IMG has also falsely claimed to be the subsidiary of IMG
Academies, Florida, USA, an expert Sports School.
Except in the note file, there was no record of any
deliberations or dialogue between the Government and
the Florida Company.
- 75 -
v. Office note bearing No. 111080/S1/03 is the only
foundation for the MoU for transfer of 400 Acres of land
belonging to the University of Hyderabad, and promise
for transfer of other lands and developed properties.
There was not even a notice to the Vice Chancellor of the
University to part with the land when the MoU came into
existence. The Executive council/Managing committee is
the lawful owner of all the properties of the University.
The Price of the land agreed to be sold was settled at Rs.
50,000 per acre. The Market price of the land at that time
was about Rs.3 crores per Acre.
vi. Another 450 Acres of Government lands at
Mamamidipalli near Shamshabad airport was promised
to be sold at Rs. 25,000/- per acre at the time of
Registration and another Rs 25,000/- to be paid after the
commencement of International Airport which should be
spent for the development of the roads and infrastructure
to the site. The market price of the said land was about
Rs. 1 Crore per acre.
vii. Further the State Government undertook to establish a
company called AP Sports Events Company which was
to be conferred with the title and ownership of all the
Government Sports Stadia and IMG was given the liberty
to take on lease or purchase all the Stadia owned by
A.P.Sports Events Company after it came into existence
- 76 -
at a price to be worked out according to the formula
annexed to the MoU.
viii. Thus A.P.Sports Events Company was conceived and
destined to act as a Special Purpose Vehicle to perish
after effecting transfer of its properties to IMG,
especially when these properties were recently
constructed and developed at an expense of Rs 125
Crores by the State.
ix. Further, so long as IMG does not please to take over the
ownership of the Stadia of APSEC, the Government was
to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores per year towards
maintenance and upkeep of the leased stadia.
x. According to Annexure 5 to the MoU the price of the
Stadia shall be the basic value of the land around the
stadia as on the date immediately prior to the MOU +
Actual construction costs of the Stadia less (-) the amount
spent for maintenance by the company and depreciation
thereof. The basic rate of the surrounding properties in
the year 2003 is just 10% of today’s price. During 45
years of lease, after deducting the depreciation, IMG can
just payback the maintenance costs received from the
Government of A.P towards the price of the Stadia on the
day when it so pleases to purchase. It is surprising to note
that for the purpose of valuation of the stadia properties,
the criteria is the basic value of the lands surrounding the
stadia as on August 2003 and for the purpose of valuation
- 77 -
of buildings thereon the value is that of the building -
(minus) depreciation.
xi. There are absolutely no returns to the State and the
general Public out of the said MoU, but only concessions
to IMG.
xii. The entire contract was entered into in conspiracy by the
political and bureaucratic executive of the day with the
Rao brothers to cause loss to the State exchequer.
xiii. It is respectfully submitted that each and every term of
the MoU entered into between the Government and IMG
was deliberately entered into without due diligence, to
cause illegitimate gain and benefit to the private
individuals and IMG and deliberately cause loss to the
Government and the public at large. This was clearly a
reciprocal arrangement between the Chief Minister and
the Rao brothers, where Mrs.Khan was a necessary and
willing accomplice. Lands worth several thousands of
crores were bartered away with no protection to the State
and no assured return to the State to a fledgling company
with no qualifications or competence.
xiv. The rights created for IMG over the properties were
worth Rs. 7000-8000 Crores, and IMG itself had paid up
capital of just Rs. 1.00 Lakh. It is reiterated that IMG was
incorporated on 05.08.2003 and the MoU running into
nearly 40 pages was prepared and approved on
06.08.2003 and signed on 09.08.2003. The self styled
- 78 -
description of the company that it is a 100% subsidiary of
IMG Academies East Ltd. Florida is not verified either
by the Authorities of the State nor has the Chairman Mr.
Andrew Krieger signed on the Articles of association
submitted to the Registrar of companies. Curiously, the
Registrar of Companies registered the said company
without the signature of the Chairman of IMGAE whose
name was shown in the Articles of Association and
without disclosing the registered address for the office.
xv. Mr.Ahobala Rao signed the Articles of Association as
Director, but in W.P.No. 24781/2006 he has deposed as
co-chairman of IMG, in an attempt to try and avoid the
obvious culpability that will follow.
xvi. The State Assembly was dissolved on 14.11.2003 and the
State Government executed a sale deed conveying 400
Acres of land in Gachchibowli and delivered advance
possession of 450 acres of land at Mamidipalli to IMG. It
is also reliably learnt that major part of the consideration
towards University lands was met from the fee paid by
the State Government as consultancy for advice in
conducting the Afro-Asian games during the relevant
period.
xvii. Subsequently, with the change in Government at the
State, when this scam surfaced, the new dispensation
decided to secure investigation into it by issuing its
consent for investigation by the CBI under Sec. 6 of the
- 79 -
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vide
G.O.Ms.No. 310 Home (SC.A) Department dated
13.12.2006 for exercise of powers and jurisdiction of the
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the
State. Before issuing the notification, the State
Government addressed a letter to the Central Government
marking a copy to the CBI to investigate into the above
said deal, and after several reminders the above said
Notification was issued as it was done in several cases
like the Outer ring road case, Paritala Ravindra murder
case and Obulapuram Mining Company Case. Nearly
five years have lapsed after the State Government
accorded its consent under Section 6 of the 1946 Act.
xviii. Having regard to the delineated spheres of activity under
the Act on legal advice, it is submitted that once the State
is prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences
and is of the view that having regard to the contours of
the same, it needs to be investigated by the CBI, the
Central Government is duty bound to honour and respect
the said request of the State as a matter of course and
ought not to be guided by convenience or expediency of
the time and matter, and effectuate the same by issuing a
consequential notification under section 5 of the Act, in
public interest to facilitate investigation into an offence.
xix. Alternatively, it is submitted that once a notification
under Section 6 of the Act is issued by the State, the
- 80 -
Central Government ought to apply its mind to the
subject matter and the material before the State
Government, and take immediate action in regard thereto,
on objective consideration of the material available. In
the event of the Central Government not being in favour
of facilitating a CBI investigation, the same has also to be
communicated to the State in order to enable the State to
take a decision on entrusting the investigation to any of
the State Agencies. The power of the Central
Government under section 5 of the Act is coupled with a
duty to act expeditiously in accordance with law, with
due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of
the case.
xx. The Central Government cannot be permitted to abdicate
its duty towards the people, conferred on it under the Act,
having regard to the involvement of public interest in the
matter. By reason of the inaction of the UoI, no case is
registered by the CBI and no investigation is conducted.
There is existence of material and circumstances which
show that offences under Section 34, 120B, 409, 420,
IPC r/ w Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c)&(d) and also
sections 8 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act have
been committed.
h. Obviously, all the above facts show that IMG is a shell
company incorporated with the sole purpose of handling the
assets of the State that was transferred with such haste for a
- 81 -
throw-away price. This was clearly pursuant to a conspiracy
whereby Mr.Naidu would receive his dues for the outrageous
favours done to the Rao brothers, and the proceeds of this
disproportionate gain would be shared by the principal actors.
i. It is respectfully submitted that the sequence and contents of
the events narrated above clearly and demonstrably evidence
the following :
Criminal Conspiracy between the political executive of the
Government at the relevant point of time with private
individuals;
with a view to cheat the State of its legitimate revenues
accruable from the sale of public assets;
and to commit criminal breach of the trust reposed in them
by the public at large of public resources;
to confer undue and illegal pecuniary and other advantages
to private individuals by depriving the State of the same; and
abetment of criminal misconduct by known and unknown
public servants with the common object of defrauding the
public and belying their trust.
The said Sri Ahobila Rao was also indicted by Justice Chalapathi
Commission which enquired into the transaction entered into by the
Government and the BHC Agro (India) Private Limited for an
irrigation project in Kuppam which resulted in various findings of
dereliction of duty, culpable negligence and various recommendations
were issued. The Government also accepted the recommendations. At
that juncture, Sri Ahobila Rao moved W.P. No. 4976 of 2009
- 82 -
contesting that the findings have been tendered without notice to him.
This Hon’ble Court by its interim order dt. 30-03-2009 was pleased to
stay all further proceedings including prosecution of the petitioner
therein pursuant to the acceptance of the report of commission of
inquiry. I am taking steps to implead myself in the said W.P. and seek
appropriate orders for ensuring that the proceedings initiated reach
their logical conclusion.
The above averments are likely to be multiplied and magnified
on further investigation, disclosing several other offences that will
need to be investigated as well. Several individuals have conspired
with Sri Naidu to subvert the system by causing pecuniary advantage
to themselves, and draining the State’s exchequer. Offences of
cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption, money-laundering and
several others are made out by all the above facts. It is in the greatest
public interest that Sri Naidu and the other private Respondents be
investigated at the earliest by both the CBI and the ED, as the offences
are of a national and international nature, and which have
ramifications across the nation. It is therefore not possible for the
State police to investigate the same, and it requires one of these
important agencies to do the needful on the directions of the court. It
may also be noted that as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is
concerned, it has given its consent to the CBI under Section 5 of the
DSPE Act, 1946 to investigate the case of the IMG MoU, but after 5
years of continued inaction by the Central Government, it is most
appropriate that the CBI be directed by this Hon’ble Court to go ahead
with investigation into the above.
- 83 -
24. On legal advice, I submit as under:
I. That a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to ensure that probity, transparency and integrity in
governance is maintained so as to ensure that the constitutional goal of
governance by rule of law does not fall by the wayside.
II . That the ideals of the Constitution contemplate a ‘Limited Government’
where the State and its instrumentalities including the political executive
acts as a custodian or the trustee of the assets of the State, which are in turn,
the assets of the citizens of the State.
III The State being the principal dispenser of largesse would be required to
act with rectitude and each of its decisions and the decision making process
ought to be informed by the concerns of public interest and the greatest good
of the largest number.
IV. The instances named above, which would only amount to a negligible
percentage of the acts of omissions and commissions of the powerful
political executive under the stewardship of the Respondent No. 8 has
caused loss to the State exchequer, caused concentration of state wealth in
the hands of a few people, who had close proximity with the Respondent No.
8 and perpetuated their interests by reason of the unholy nexus of these
private businessmen/entities and brief-case Companies.
V. The policy making of the State under Respondent No. 8 was
manipulated and manicured to further the business and personal prospects of
each of these private individuals/entities to the depletion of the State
exchequer and substantial public assets were disposed of and dispensed with
utter disregard of public interest and revenues.
- 84 -
VI . As a quid pro quo for such State Policies and State decisions to grant
largesse, the Respondent No. 8 and his family members made a huge fortune
and in the process amassing huge wealth disproportionate to their own
sources of income and also a huge vortex of complex and convoluted
transactions have been made in regard to purchase and sale of lands, and the
like, to erase any link or tracing of the trail back to the Respondent no.8
and his family.
VII. The ingenuity with which the entire process was put in place, each cog
in the process aimed, designed and calibrated to suit the private interests of
the Respondent No. 8 and his family and the members belonging to his
political family and his relatives, at the cost of the State exchequer and also
the interests of the citizens, requires an investigation by a competent and
credible agency, which has the wherewithal to unravel the complex web of
transactions authored by the Respondent No. 8 and members of his family.
VIII . The clout wielded by the Respondent No. 8 and his family in the
national scene virtually depleted the strength of the law enforcement
agencies and notwithstanding the open and at times brazen display of the
political power to silence the critics and also the investigative agencies, the
existing architecture of the investigating agencies, could not proceed further
in investigating into any of the issues concerning the criminal conduct of the
Respondent No. 8 and his members of family. The life and political career
of the 8th respondent has been a saga of manipulation, malevolence and acts
of personal corruption and public interest, as is detailed above, was his last
concern. While his public posturing has been one of exhortation of the
values of probity in public life, good governance and honest transactions
with the people at large, the governance of the State during his tenure as
- 85 -
Chief Minister only yielded benefit to the a small cross section of people,
primarily led by his family, near and dear relatives and the party men owing
allegiance to Telugu Desam Party. For a good period of 9 years, the State
and its resources were deployed only to perpetuate the interests of the family
of the 8th respondent and his henchmen resulting in concentration of State
wealth in a few hands, which is antithetical to the rule of law. I shall co-
operate with any enquiry which may be undertaken in the subject matter and
shall furnish such other information as I might secure during the course of
the pendency of the W.P.
IX. In regard to securing information in the manner pleaded above, I had to
seek the help and contribution of many people, and primarily including Sri
Vijay Sai Reddy, Chartered Accountant, who has been the financial advisor
for the family since the year 1985.
X . I submit that law enforcement agencies independently investigating
into the subject matter is not even remotely possible against the Respondent
No. 8, his family members and his friends and well wishers. The evidence in
this regard is the inaction of the UOI in regard to investigation under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act in the matter concerning IMGA
Bharata case. I have impleaded the parties who are centrally the
beneficiaries of the acts of omission and commission of the Respondent No.
8 during his tenure as the Chief Minister of the State and in as much as the
relief in the present W.P. is limited to seek directions to investigate,
primarily, the role, conduct and other decisions of the 8th Respondent when
he was the Chief Minister of the State between 1995-2004, any other known
or unknown beneficiaries and colluders would be brought to light only after
investigation and all the parties, who are necessary to be made parties, in the
- 86 -
context of the present lis, have been impleaded as party Respondents. In
view of the above submissions, I am constrained to file the present Writ
Petition.
25. I have no other alternate and effective remedy except approaching
this Hon’ble Court in extra-ordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
26. I have not filed any writ nor initiated any suit or other proceedings
before any other Court of law seeking for the relief sought for in the present
Writ Petition.
27. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus
declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 7 in initiating penal action
against the 8th Respondent and his associates, i.e., Respondents No.9 to 20
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Money
Laundering Act 2002 and other applicable penal laws as illegal, arbitrary
and consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 6 to initiate proceedings
under law including by issuing a further direction to the 4th Respondent to
conduct an investigation/probe in respect of allotment of lands, granting of
licences, decisions of disinvestment and amassing disproportionate wealth
and assets by the Respondents No.8 to 10 and the involvement of the
Respondents No. 11 to 20 and prosecute the unofficial respondents and
others in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
- 87 -
28. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it is further prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to conduct a
preliminary enquiry into the subject matter and submit a preliminary
enquiry report to this Hon’ble Court in regard to the acts of omission and
commission of the Respondent No. 8 during his tenure as Chief Minister of
the State including in the matter of allot of lands, grant of contracts,
conferment of incentives and concessions and benami holdings of the 8th
respondent and his family members and pass such other order or orders as
are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Solemnly affirmed and signed on this the 13th day of October, 2011 at Hyderabad DEPONENT
BEFORE ME,
ADVOCATE, HYDERABAD
- 88 -
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, Smt. Y. S. Vijaya, W/o late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, aged about 55
years, Occ: MLA, being the Petitioner herein, do hereby declare that the
facts stated in paragraphs (1) to (23) are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information and the contents in paragraphs No.24 to
27 are believed to be true and correct on the legal advice of my counsel.
Hence verified on this the 13th day of October, 2011 at Hyderabad.
Place : Hyderabad
Date : 17-10-2011 PETITIONER
- 89 -
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION ( Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE:.ANDHRA PRAADESH AT HYDERABAD
Special Original Jurisdiction
W.P. No. OF 2011
Between
Y. S. Vijaya W/o late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy Aged about 55 years , Member of Legislative Assembly Honourary President, YSR Congress Party R/o Bakarapeta, Pulivendula Y.S. R. Kadapa District …. Petitioner And
1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The State of A.P. Rep by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
3 . The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation rep by its Director, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi.
5. The Enforcement Directorate, rep.by its Director 6th floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi – 110 003
6. The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad
7. The Securities Exchange Board of India Plot No C4-A. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 rep by its Chairman
8. Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu S/o N. Kharjura Naidu Aged about 61 years, M.L.A, R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
9. Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari W/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 55 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
- 90 -
10. Sri N. Lokesh S/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 28 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
11 . Sri Ch. Ramoji Rao S/o Venkata Subba Rao Kartha of HUF. Aged about 75 years Chairman’s Residennce, Ramoji Film City, Anajpur, R.R. District, Hyderabad – 501 512 12. Ushodaya enterprises Private Limited Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by Sri Ch.Ramoji Rao, Kartha of HUF
13. M/s. Heritage Foods (India) Limited 6-1-541/C, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082 Rep by its Managing Director Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari
14. Mr. Ahobala Rao S/o P.V. Subba Rao Aged about 51 years Occ. Business Plot No. 305A, Road No. 25 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
15. Sri V. Nagaraja Naidu S/o Rama Naidu Aged : Major, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 1178, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
16. Sri Yelamanchili Satyanarayana Chowdhary S/o Yelamanchili Janardhana Rao, aged about 50 years R/o Plot No. 29, Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 17. Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Limited 1-7-70, Madhu Complex, Jubileepura Khammam – 507 003, Rep.by its Founder Sri Nama Nageswara Rao. 18 . Maganti Rajababu alias Murali Mohan S/o Maganti Madhava Rao, aged : Major , Occ. Business R/o A14, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
19. Sri Karnati Venkateswara Rao S/o Kotaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ. Chairman, M/s. Kakinada Sea Ports Limited, 8-2-418, Meenakshi House, 3rd floor, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034
20. Sri Chintakunta Munuswamy Ramesh S/o Munuswamy Naidu, Aged : Major, Occ. Chairman, Rithwik group of Companies , 8-2-269/S/91/B, Road No. 2, Sagar Society Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 … RESPONDENTS
- 91 -
The address of the Petitioner for the purpose of service of all notices
and summons is that her Counsel, M/s. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy (459),
Advocate, 5-9-839, Gun Foundry, Hyderabad.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner
herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or
direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the
inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 6 in initiating penal action against the
8th Respondent and his associates, i.e., Respondents No.9 to 20 under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Money Laundering
Act 2002 and other applicable penal laws as illegal, arbitrary and
consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 6 to initiate proceedings under
law including by issuing a further direction to the 4th Respondent to conduct
an investigation/probe in respect of allotment of lands, granting of licences,
decisions of disinvestment and amassing disproportionate wealth and assets
by the Respondents No.8 to 10 and the involvement of the Respondents No.
11 to 20 and prosecute the unofficial respondents and others in accordance
with law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Place : Hyderabad Date : 17-10-2011 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
- 92 -
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ( Filed under Article Section 151 of C.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE:.ANDHRA PRAADESH AT HYDERABAD
W.P.M.P.NO. OF 2011
IN
W.P. No. OF 2011 Between
Y. S. Vijaya W/o late Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy Aged about 55 years , Member of Legislative Assembly Honourary President, YSR Congress Party R/o Bakarapeta, Pulivendula Y.S. R. Kadapa District …. Petitioner/Petitioner And
1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The State of A.P. Rep by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
3 . The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation rep by its Director, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi.
5. The Enforcement Directorate, rep.by its Director 6th floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi – 110 003
6. The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad
7. The Securities Exchange Board of India Plot No C4-A. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 rep by its Chairman
8. Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu S/o N. Kharjura Naidu Aged about 61 years, M.L.A, R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
9. Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari W/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 55 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
- 93 -
10. Sri N. Lokesh S/o N. Chandrababu Naidu Aged about 28 years Occ. business R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
11 . Sri Ch. Ramoji Rao S/o Venkata Subba Rao Kartha of HUF. Aged about 75 years Chairman’s Residennce, Ramoji Film City, Anajpur, R.R. District, Hyderabad – 501 512 12. Ushodaya enterprises Private Limited Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by Sri Ch.Ramoji Rao, Kartha of HUF
13. M/s. Heritage Foods (India) Limited 6-1-541/C, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082 Rep by its Managing Director Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari
14. Mr. Ahobala Rao S/o P.V. Subba Rao Aged about 51 years Occ. Business Plot No. 305A, Road No. 25 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
15. Sri V. Nagaraja Naidu S/o Rama Naidu Aged : Major, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 1178, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
16. Sri Yelamanchili Satyanarayana Chowdhary S/o Yelamanchili Janardhana Rao, aged about 50 years R/o Plot No. 29, Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 17. Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Limited 1-7-70, Madhu Complex, Jubileepura Khammam – 507 003, Rep.by its Founder Sri Nama Nageswara Rao. 18 . Maganti Rajababu alias Murali Mohan S/o Maganti Madhava Rao, aged : Major , Occ. Business R/o A14, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
19. Sri Karnati Venkateswara Rao S/o Kotaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ. Chairman, M/s. Kakinada Sea Ports Limited, 8-2-418, Meenakshi House, 3rd floor, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034
20. Sri Chintakunta Munuswamy Ramesh S/o Munuswamy Naidu, Aged : Major, Occ. Chairman, Rithwik group of Companies , 8-2-269/S/91/B, Road No. 2, Sagar Society Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 … Respondents/Respondents
- 94 -
For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above
Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry into
the subject matter and submit a preliminary enquiry report to this Hon’ble
Court in regard to the acts of omission and commission of the Respondent
No. 8 during his tenure as Chief Minister of the State including in the matter
of allot of lands, grant of contracts, conferment of incentives and
concessions and benami holdings of the 8th respondent and his family
members and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
Place : Hyderabad Date : 17-10-2011 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
- 95 -
ADDRESSES OF THE RESPONDENTS
1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The State of A.P. rep by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
3 . The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation rep by its Director, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi.
5. The Enforcement Directorate, rep.by its Director 6th floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi – 110 003
6. The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad
7. The Securities Exchange Board of India Plot No C4-A. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 rep by its Chairman
8. Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu S/o N. Kharjura Naidu M.L.A, R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
9. Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari W/o N. Chandrababu Naidu R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
10. Sri N. Lokesh S/o N. Chandrababu Naidu R/o Plot No. 1310, Road No. 65 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
11. Sri Ch. Ramoji Rao S/o Venkata Subba Rao Kartha of HUF. Aged about 75 years Chairman’s Residennce, Ramoji Film City, Anajpur, R.R. District, Hyderabad – 501 512
12. Ushodaya enterprises Private Limited Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by Sri Ch.Ramoji Rao, Kartha of HUF
13. M/s. Heritage Foods (India) Limited 6-1-541/C, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082 Rep by its Managing Director Smt. N. Bhuvaneswari
14. Mr. Ahobala Rao S/o P.V. Subba Rao Plot No. 305A, Road No. 25 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
15. Sri V. Nagaraja Naidu S/o Rama Naidu R/o Plot No. 1178, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
16. Sri Yelamanchili Satyanarayana Chowdhary S/o Yelamanchili Janardhana Rao, R/o Plot No. 29, Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34
17. Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Limited 1-7-70, Madhu Complex, Jubileepura Khammam – 507 003, Rep.by its Founder Sri Nama Nageswara Rao.
18 . Maganti Rajababu alias Murali Mohan S/o Maganti Madhava Rao, R/o A14, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
20. Sri Chintakunta Munuswamy Ramesh S/o Munuswamy Naidu, Chairman, Rithwik group of Companies , 8-2-269/S/91/B, Road No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 ADVOCATE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
- 96 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD
W.P NO. OF 2011
Between :
Smt. Y.S.Vijaya … Petitioner
And The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and 19 others … Respondents
PRAYER TO THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction,
more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of
the Respondents No.1 to 6 in initiating penal action against the 8th
Respondent and his associates, i.e., Respondents No.9 to 20 under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Money Laundering
Act 2002 and other applicable penal laws as illegal, arbitrary and
consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 6 to initiate proceedings under
law including by issuing a further direction to the 4th Respondent to conduct
an investigation/probe in respect of allotment of lands, granting of licences,
decisions of disinvestment and amassing disproportionate wealth and assets
by the Respondents No.8 to 10 and the involvement of the Respondents No.
11 to 20 and prosecute the unofficial respondents and others in accordance
with law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
COUNSELS:
FOR PETITIONER:
FOR RESPONDENTS No.1, 5 & 7: SOLICITOR GENERAL
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3 & 6 : G.P.FOR HOME
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 20 : BATTA PAID
- 97 -
HYDERABAD : DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADEH:AT HYDERABAD
W.P.NO. OF 2011 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED BY : M/s. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY ( 459)
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
- 98 -
HYDERABAD : DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADEH:AT HYDERABAD
W.P.M.P.NO. OF 2011
IN
W.P.NO. OF 2011
DIRECTION PETITION FILED BY : M/s. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
(459) ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
- 99 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
W.P NO. OF 2011
Between : Smt. Y.S. Vijaya … Petitioner And
The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and 19 others … Respondents
RUNNING INDEX
S.No. Description of
Document
Date of
Paper
Date of
Filing
Page
Nos.
Ex.No.
1 Service Certificate 16-10-2011 16-10-2011 1
2 Court Fee 16-10-2011 16-10-2011 2
3 Writ Petition 16-10-2011 16-10-2011 3 – 5
4 Annexure 16-10-2011 16-10-2011
5 Affidavit 16-10-2011 16-10-2011
6 Verification 16-10-2011 16-10-2011
MATERIAL PAPERS Book No. 1 – VIII
7 Additional Counter Affidavit filed Sri Chandrababu Naidu in W.P.No.7606/1988
30-06-1988 16-10-2011 101 - 107 P1
8 Various Orders in Rc.No.B1 2837/2002 of RDO, Guduru.
14-12-2004 16-10-2011 108 - 116 P2
9 Various Encumbrance Certificates issued by Sub-Registrar, Venkatagiri, Nellore
16-10-2011 117 – 178 P3
10 Photographs relating to Nindali Village Lands belongs to Sri Chandra Babu Naidu
16-10-2011 179 - 187 P4
11 Self declaration of assets by Sri Chandra Babu Naidu & Family
02-04-1999 188 P5
- 100 -
before the speaker of A.P.Assembly Newspaper Clipping
12 Self declaration of assets by Sri Chandra Babu Naidu & his family before the Election Commission
02-04-2004 16-10-2011 189 - 196 P6
13 Self declaration of assets by Sri Chandra Babu Naidu & his family before the Election Commission
29-03-2009 16-10-2011 197 - 206 P7
14 Settlement Deed executed by Smt. N.Ammannamma in favour of N.Lokesh
20-12-2001 16-10-2011 207 - 213 P8
15 Self Declaration of assets by Sri Chandra Babu Naidu
02-09-2011 16-10-2011 214 - 219 P9
16 Sale Executed by J.P.Vittal in faviour of N.Ammannamma
11-12-2000 16-10-2011 220 - 229 P10
17 Gift Deed executed by Smt. N.Ammannamma in favour of N.Lokesh
Dec.2001 16-10-2011 230 - 231 P11
18 Sale Deed executed by Smt. N.Ammanamma & Lokesh in favoure of J.Satyanarayana
24-03-2004 16-10-2011 232 - 241 P12
19 Annual return of M/s. Bizpro Technologies
10-01-2003 16-10-2011 242 - 250 P13
20 MOA of M/s. Bizpro Technologies
19-02-2000 16-10-2011 251 – 260 P14
21 Sale Deed executed by Smt. N.Bhuvaneswari and others in favour of K.Satish Reddy
27-07-2000 16-10-2011 260 - 271 P15
22 Sale Deed executed by Smt. N.Bhuvaneswari and others in favour of K.Preeti Reddy
27-07-2000 16-10-2011 272 - 281 P16
23 Statutory Notification of Cyberabad Development Authority
16-10-2011 281 - 284 P17
24 Memorandum for recording creation of Mortgage by depositing title deeds by Divyasree
13-03-2009 16-10-2011 285 - 302 P18
- 101 -
25 Certificate of Incorporation of Bhuvaneswari Carbides and Chemicals
21-06-1983 16-10-2011 303 - 304 P19
26 MOA of Bhuvaneswari Carbides and Chemicals
21-06-1983 16-10-2011 305 - 308 P20
27 AOA of Bhuvaneswari Carbides and Chemicals
21-06-1983 16-10-2011 309 - 312 P21
28 Certificate of registration of Mortgage of Bhuvaneswari Carbides & Chemicals
20-02-1984 16-10-2011 313 P22
29 Creation of Charge Document of Bhuvaneswari Carbides & Chemicals
05-06-1984 16-10-2011 314 - 315 P23
30 Creation of Charge Document of Bhuvaneswari Carbides & Chemicals
11-07-1983 16-10-2011 316 - 317 P24
31 Creation of Charge Document of Bhuvaneswari Carbides & Alloys
21-08-1984 16-10-2011 318 - 319 P25
32 Creation of Charge Document of Bhuvaneswari Carbides & Chemicals