I SURENDRA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
C.Praveen Kumar, J. -
(1.)The present writ petition came to be filed in the nature of public interest litigation, seeking the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, the petitioner prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in ordering for the enquiry into the affairs of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to the representation of the Petitioner dt.18-05-2011 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 38(2) and 39(b) of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 to order for an independent enquiry by appointing a enquiry committee and cause detailed enquiry into the affairs of the 2nd Respondent for correcting the irregularities committed by the erring officials and to rectify the same as well as to initiate appropriate penal proceedings against the responsible persons in accordance with law and further issue necessary directions to regulate the affairs of the 2nd Respondent to achieve the objects of the SVIMS Act and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(2.)A reading of the contents of the writ affidavit would show that the petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent, during his tenure as Director of the second respondent University for the period from 19.11.1999 to 12.10.2009, involved in several irregularities, namely, mismanagement of funds of the University, illegal promotions, irregular pay fixations etc. In the local audit conducted by the Accountant General of the State for the period from 2001-02 to 2008-09, several financial irregularities were pointed out by the Audit Department. According to the audit report, public funds of the second respondent University, to a tune of about Rs.11.00 crores, were misused. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 5 on 18.05.2011, requesting them to conduct a detailed independent enquiry in relation to the alleged irregularities pointed out in the audit report, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, this pro bono litigation.
(3.)At paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner detailed the irregularities allegedly committed by the sixth respondent, including those pointed out in the audit report, which resulted in financial burden upon the second respondent university, as indicated in a tabular form, which is extracted hereunder:
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.