A bench of the AP High Court granted two weeks’ time to the Central government to intimate to the court its decision in connection with according sanction for prosecution of IAS officials in Emaar and Jagan assets cases.
The bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by C. Kutumba Rao, a freelance journalist of Hyderabad, who challenged the delay being caused by the Centre in according sanction.
The petitioner lamented that the CBI had requested the government to sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to prosecute IAS officers B.P. Acharya and L.V. Subrahmanyam in Emaar scam case and that of Acharya, G.Venkatarami Reddy, Manmohan Singh and M. Samuel, in various charge-sheets of Jagan assets case, but there was no response.
The counsel appearing for the Central government said that the issue had been referred to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The bench expressed surprise and did not hide its disapproval.
The case was adjourned by two weeks for the Centre to inform the court its decision.
Koodankulam plant
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sen Gupta and Justice K.C. Bhanu on Monday directed the Union government and the Ministry of Atomic Energy to file affidavit in the court explaining how the rules were followed while setting up the atomic power plant at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.
The bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by Capt. J. Rama Rao, well-known environmentalist, who contended that the authorities were speaking about a rehabilitation package for villagers near Kovvada in Srikakulam district without obtaining site clearance form Atomic Regulatory Board.
G. Mohana Rao, counsel for the petitioner, said that villagers could not be threatened with eviction without mandatory site clearance. The bench, after perusing the counter affidavits filed by respondent authorities, felt it would be useful to know how the rules were followed in the case of Koodankulam. The case will be listed next Monday.
Case adjourned
The High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the validity of provisions of Representation of Peoples Act which permit a person to contest from many constituencies.
The writ petition was filed by Venugopala Reddy, practising advocate, who contended that the provisions of the RP Act permit a person to hold the post of MLA and MP for at least for a limited period and this is not good for democracy.
The counsel for the petitioner Appa Rao said that due to some candidates contesting for several constituencies, the democratic spirit of the election process is being defeated.
The bench directed the authorities to file counter affidavits and adjourned the case.
