REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8540-8541 OF 2022

The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants

Versus

Varla Ramaiah etc. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis�ed with the

impugned interim order passed by the High

Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at

Amravati in I.A. No.1/2020 in Writ Petition

No.6562 of 2020 and Writ Petition No.6711 of

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 1 of 13

Digitally signed by

Neetu Sachdeva

Date: 2023.05.03

15:42:25 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified 2023 INSC 485

2020 by which while admitting the writ

petitions the High Court has stayed all further

proceedings pursuant to the G.O. Rt. No.1411

dated 26.06.2019 and G.O. Rt. No.344 dated

21.02.2020, the State of Andhra Pradesh has

preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in

nutshell are as under:

2.1 By virtue of G.O. issued on 26.06.2019, the

State Government appointed a Cabinet Sub-

Committee to examine the allegations of

corruption against members of the erstwhile

Government. On 27.12.2019, the Cabinet

Sub-Committee submitted an interim report

recording a prima facie �nding about certain

allegations. During the meeting held on

27.12.2019, the Sub-Committee also resolved

to consider handing over the investigation to

the CBI/CID/Lokayukta. On the basis of the

report, vide the second G.O. dated 21.02.2020,

the State set up the SIT to undertake an

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 2 of 13

investigation of these allegations. The said

decision was rati�ed by the Cabinet during its

meeting held on 04.03.2020. The head of the

SIT thereafter wrote to the Government on

21.03.2020 that the matter had wide-spread

rami�cations and therefore was required to be

handed over to a Central Agency such as the

CBI. Accordingly, vide letter dated 23.03.2020

the State Government requested the Central

Government to refer the matter to the CBI. On

13.07.2020, the State expressly gave its

consent to the exercise of powers by the Delhi

Police Establishment within the State of

Andhra Pradesh, such that the CBI may

conduct such an investigation in respect of the

scam involving Andhra Pradesh State Fibre Net

Ltd.

2.2 At that stage, the original writ petitioners

challenged both G.O. dated 26.06.2019 and

the subsequent G.O. dated 21.02.2020 before

the High Court by way of the present Writ

Petition No.6562 of 2020 and Writ Petition

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 3 of 13

No.6711 of 2020. The State �led applications

for the impleadment of the Union of India and

the Enforcement Directorate, since it wished to

have these allegations investigated by a

Central Agency. The High Court rejected the

impleadment applications. However, thereafter

by the impugned interim order the High Court

has stayed all further proceedings pursuant to

the aforesaid two GOs. Hence, the present

appeals.

3. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of

Andhra Pradesh has submitted that High

Court has stayed the further proceedings of the

respective G.Os mainly on the following

grounds:

“1. Rule of law demands continuity

and a new Government cannot

be permitted to overturn the

decisions of the previous

Government.

2. That the Government, in

exercise of its executive powers,

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 4 of 13

does not have an ‘inherent’

power of review.

3. That there was ‘no lacuna or

gap’ that needed to be �lled and

that State could therefore not

have exercised its executive

power.

4. That Complainant and

Investigator being the same,

there is likelihood of bias;

5. That Powers to constitute a

Commission/SIT ought to be

sparingly used even by the

Courts. Therefore, the said

restriction is applicable to the

Government with even more

vigour.”

3.1 It is submitted that all the aforesaid grounds

are completely unsustainable. It is submitted

that the High Court has not properly

appreciated the fact that the question was not

whether the policies of the previous

Government ought to be continued. It is

submitted that the question was whether

alleged acts of corruption/misfeasance alleged

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 5 of 13

against the previous Government ought to be

investigated. It is submitted that the High

Court has not properly appreciated the fact

that there were wide spread allegations of

corruption and, thus, allegations were required

to be investigated and, therefore, a Committee

was accordingly constituted to inquire into the

acts of corruption/misfeasance and there was

no other mala �de intention.

3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not

properly appreciated that the respective G.Os

were issued by the State Government in

exercise of its executive powers and as such

were not to review the earlier decisions taken

by the previous Government. It is submitted

that the act of conducting investigation cannot

be termed as a ‘review’ in the sense in which

the High Court has understood.

3.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not

properly appreciated the fact that as such the

constitution of the SIT pursuant to the G.Os

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 6 of 13

can only be said to be fact �nding itself to

inquire into the misdeeds/acts of

corruption/misfeasance alleged against the

previous Government.

3.4 Number of other submissions have been made

by learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant – State on merits of the

respective G.Os and the scope and ambit of

the Sub- Committee/SIT.

3.5 It is further submitted that as such the State

did not act with a mala �de intention as

projected before the High Court. It is

submitted that in fact the State proposed to

have the allegations inquired by the Central

Agency for which the letter dated 23.03.2020

was addressed by the State Government to the

Central Government to refer the matter to the

CBI. It is submitted that, therefore, there was

no inherent bias.

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 7 of 13

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by

the learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the original writ petitioners. Number

of submissions have been made on merits by

Shri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the respondents –

original writ petitioners.

4.1 It is submitted by Shri Siddharth Dave learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

original writ petitioners that as such the

present appeals are against the interim

order/stay granted by the High Court and the

main writ petitions are yet to be considered,

decided and disposed of by the High Court.

4.2 It is submitted that the stay granted by the

High Court has been continued since more

than 2 years and, therefore, this Court may

not examine the merits of the matter and leave

the merits of the matter to be decided by the

High Court in the pending writ petitions.

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 8 of 13

5. Having heard learned Senior Advocates

appearing on behalf of the respective parties

and after taking into consideration the

reasoning given by the High Court while

staying the further proceedings pursuant to

the G.Os dated 26.06.2019 and 21.02.2020,

we are prima facie of the opinion that some of

the reasoning given by the High Court while

staying the further proceedings pursuant to

the aforesaid two G.Os. may not be germane,

more particularly, when the High Court has

observed that the new Government cannot be

permitted to overturn the decisions of the

previous Government.

5.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of the State is justi�ed 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

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 9 of 13

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.

5.2 However, 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

raised before us based upon the decisions of

this Court on legal aspects. The fact that the

�rst 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.

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 10 of 13

5.3 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 �rst 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 a�ording

ample opportunity to the parties before it.

5.4 It has also been brought to our notice that the

petitioners (now appellants) did �le an

application to implead the Union of India and

the Enforcement Directorate. The aforesaid

application was dismissed by a separate order

dated 16.09.2020 inter alia holding that the

presence of the proposed respondents was not

required. The aforesaid approach of the High

Court, especially when the main writ petitions

are yet to be disposed of, and the request

made by the petitioners (now appellants) being

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 11 of 13

under consideration, ought not to have been

adopted. Perhaps, the respondents/writ

petitioners themselves could have made Union

of India as a party to the writ petitions as the

decision on the letter of the petitioner (now

appellant) dated 23.03.2020 would have a

bearing on the lis before the High Court. There

is no doubt in our mind that the Union of

India is a proper and necessary party to be

arrayed as a respondent in the writ petitions.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to

set aside the orders dated 16.09.2020 in I.A.

1/2020 and I.A. 2/2020, while making it clear

that we have not expressed anything on the

merits of the case. The High Court is expected

to decide and dispose of the writ petitions on

merits and in accordance with law, without

being in�uenced by any of the observations

made in our order. Considering the issues

governing the facts and law, the High Court

may make an endeavour to dispose of the writ

petitions �nally within a period of 3 months

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 12 of 13

from the date of receipt of the copy of this

judgment. The proposed respondent i.e.,

Union of India in I.A. 2 of 2020 which was

dismissed by the High Court is directed to be

added as a respondent in the writ petitions

and its views will have to be taken note of.

7. The appeals stand allowed. The miscellaneous

applications are closed. No order as to costs.

.……………………….J.

(M.R. SHAH)

.……………………….J.

(M. M. SUNDRESH)

New Delhi,

May 03, 2023.

Civil Appeal Nos. 8540-8541 of 2022 Page 13 of 13