HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE: W.P (PIL).No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023.

PROCEEDINGS SHEET

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE

	09.02.2023	(Through Physical Mode)
		W.P.No.3041 of 2023
		This order shall govern disposal of issues raised by Mr. Vikas
		Singh and Mr. Devadutt Kamat, learned senior counsel assisted by
		Mr. Mayank Jain and Mr. Madhur Jain, learned counsel, on behalf
		of Mr. M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the
		petitioners in W.P.No.3041 of 2023, by filing a memo dated
		08.02.2023.
		Yesterday, the learned Advocate General made a mention at
		10.30 a.m., that W.P.No.3041 of 2023 is<br>posted before a single
		Bench and on the same issue, W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020 is also
		pending consideration before this Court, and therefore, both the
		matters may be heard together.
		On such mention being made, this Court directed both the
		matters to be posted before this Court today. We also requested
		the learned Advocate General to inform the learned single Bench
		having roster to deal with W.P.No.3041 of 2023.
		After some time, when the court proceedings were<br>going on,
		again mention was made before us by the petitioners' counsel
		that the learned single Judge is not taking up the matter, to which
		we expressed<br>that since the matter is posted before the learned
		single Bench, it is in the domain of the learned single Judge to
		pass any order after hearing the parties.<br>However, the learned
		single Judge did not pass any order and simply directed the

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE
		matter to be posted today. Both the matters have now been listed
		before us in terms of the order passed by us on mention slip,
		which is always construed to be an order passed in open Court
		and has the sanctity of judicial order.
		In the memo filed on behalf of the petitioners, the relief
		claimed in both the writ petitions are reproduced<br>in tabular form
		for facilitation of comparison to demonstrate that since the issues
		involved in both the writ petitions are substantially different, both
		the matters should<br>not be heard together and W.P.No.3041 of
		2023 should be posted for hearing before the Bench having
		roster.
		It is also argued that when the matter is cognizable by single
		Judge,<br>the<br>Division<br>Bench<br>should<br>not<br>hear<br>depriving<br>the
		petitioners<br>to avail the<br>right of appeal. Reference is also made to
		the judgments<br>of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988)
		2 SCC 602 (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak<br>& another)<br>and
		(2018) 8 SCC 396<br>(Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of
		India & Anr). It is also argued that the present writ petition<br>is
		not a Public Interest Litigation for the reason that in<br>(1992) 4
		SCC 305 (Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and others), the
		Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle as to when the
		Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.
		It is also submitted that<br>yesterday<br>at 10.30 a.m., the learned
		Advocate General made a mention to club the present writ
		petition with the Public Interest Litigation<br>without informing the
		petitioners in this writ petition.
		Per contra, the learned Advocate<br>General would refer to the
		sequence of events which happened in the Court when the
		mention was made about this writ petition.

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE
		By filing a memo on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6, learned
		Advocate<br>General<br>would<br>refer<br>to<br>the<br>averments<br>made<br>in
		paragraph Nos.10, 12, 13,17, 20 and 23 of W.P (PIL) No.222 of
		2020 and those averred in paragraph Nos.5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 and
		20 of W.P.No.3041 of 2023 to submit that the factual foundation
		in both the writ petitions on the basis of which the reliefs have
		been sought are one and the same, although in W.P. (PIL) No.222
		of 2020, the private company<br>was not made<br>as<br>party and no<br>relief
		was claimed against them in W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020.
		Learned Advocate General would submit that merely because
		the Hon'ble Chief Minister was not made as party in the earlier
		W.P (PIL),<br>it would not become different than the present writ
		petition, more<br>so, when the Hon'ble Chief Minister is named in the
		averments made in W.P (PIL) without making him or the company
		as parties in W.P (PIL).
		Learned Advocate General would also submit that the reliefs
		claimed in the present writ petition are also similar<br>to the reliefs
		claimed in W.P (PIL), because the said reliefs are not personal to
		the petitioners<br>but they are in the nature of direction for recovery
		of monies from respondent No.7 paid by the Government to
		volunteers<br>and functionaries, which has been infused into the
		respondent No.7.
		Having perused the averments made in both the writ petitions
		which are mainly concerning the circulation of various news
		papers in the State and the nature of the allegations<br>which are
		mainly focusing on the undeserving benefit of advertisement
		money to Sakshi newspaper<br>at the cost of general public, we are
		of the view that the issues involved in both the writ petitions are
		substantially the same.

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE
		If W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020 is taken up and dismissed, the
		foundation of nature of allegations in this writ petition would fall
		without hearing the petitioners in W.P.No.3041 of 2023. Since the
		factual foundation in both the matters appears<br>to be one and the
		same, we are of the considered opinion that both the matters can
		be clubbed and heard together by this Court.
		Though the learned counsel for the parties have referred to the
		manner in which mention was made for listing this matter<br>on
		yesterday at 10.30 a.m.,<br>and thereafter, before other Bench, we
		are not inclined to enter into that aspect as it reflects on the
		conduct of the counsel rather than Court proceedings.
		Learned Advocate General has tried to read out<br>the orders
		issued by the departments of Grampanchayat and Panchayat Raj
		etc., to submit that at the threshold,<br>the matter is not cognizable
		by the single Bench,<br>where it was listed yesterday. However, we
		do not want to enter into this<br>aspect<br>also, since we have now
		decided that both the matters have overlapping<br>factual foundation
		and can be heard together by this Bench.
		I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.3041 of 2023
		This application for dispensing with filing of certified copy of
		the Circular dated 9.12.2022, is considered and allowed.
		I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023<br>in W.P.No.3041 of 2023
		Heard.
		Post on 14.02.2023 for pronouncement of orders.

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE
		W.P.No.3041 of 2023
		Official respondents are represented by the learned Advocate<br>General.
		Let official respondents file counter-affidavit(s) in two weeks.
		W.P (PIL) No.222 of 2020
		Counter-affidavit(s) shall be filed in two weeks<br>in this petition<br>also.

		PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ<br>NINALA JAYASURYA, J
		Nn/MRR

Sl.<br>No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE

Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited vs. The State Of Ap

AI Summary

Order Issued After Hearing

Original Order Copy

Order Text

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE: W.P (PIL).No.222 of 2020 & W.P.No.3041 of 2023.

PROCEEDINGS SHEET

Share This Order

Order(8) - 19 Apr 2023

Order(7) - 21 Mar 2023

Order(6) - 28 Feb 2023

Order(3) - 14 Feb 2023

Order(4) - 14 Feb 2023

Order(5) - 14 Feb 2023

Order(2) - 9 Feb 2023

Order(1) - 8 Feb 2023

Same Parties

Lawyers

Judges

Acts & Sections

Search in District Courts Data