- (1.) This special leave petition is directed against an Order dated 16.02.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby writ petition No. 28951 of 2011 purporting to have been filed in public interest has been dismissed as not maintainable. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above petition have been set out at considerable length by the High Court. We do not therefore consider it necessary to recount the same over again. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner happens to be the Honorary President of a political party and a sitting Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, besides being the wife of a former Chief Minister of that State. Writ Petition No. 28951 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleged that Respondent No. 8, who was the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh for a period of 9 years from 1995 to 2004 had acting in concert with Respondent Nos. 9 to 20 and by abuse of his official position conferred wrongful gain upon the said Respondents to the detriment of public interest. The Petitioner made averments suggesting commission of offences by Respondent Nos. 8 to 20 including those punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the Indian Penal Code; the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; FEMA; and the Representation of People Act. Allegations suggesting commission of offences under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act were also made while demanding an impartial enquiry into the acts and deeds of Respondent No. 8 by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(2.) When the writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court it passed an order dated 14.11.2011 admitting the petition and directing an investigation/inquiry into the acts of criminal misconduct alleged to have been committed by Respondent No. 8 and Respondents No. 9 to 20 his beneficiaries. The High Court directed that reports based on the investigation be submitted by each one of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in sealed covers for further consideration of the Court.
(3.) The above order of the High Court was assailed before this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 32037 of 2011, which was dismissed by a Three Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 23.11.2011. Liberty was however reserved to the Respondents -petitioners in the said special leave petition to move the High Court for modification/vacation of the order passed by it. The Respondents accordingly moved the High Court for vacation of the interim order and also for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner on several grounds set out in the Counter affidavits filed by the Respondents including the ground that the writ petition could not be maintained as one filed in public interest. It was alleged that the writ Petitioner had suppressed material facts from the court and that the petition had been filed on account of political rivalry and vendetta and not in public interest. It was further alleged by the Respondents that the Petitioner had offered no explanation for the delay in complaining about the alleged acts of Respondent Nos. 8 to 20 and that the order passed by the court directing a preliminary inquiry was a nullity having been passed without notice to and without hearing the Respondents.;