SC Issues Notices To TDP Leaders In Amaravati Land Deals SIT Probe Case

SC Issues Notices To TDP Leaders In Amaravati Land Deals SIT Probe Case - Sakshi Post

SC agrees to hear AP's plea against stay on SIT probe in Amaravati land deals

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court  on Thursday issued  Notices to Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leaders - Varla Ramaiah and Alapati Rajendra Prasad, on whose petitions the  Andhra Pradesh (AP) high court had stayed the probe initiated by the SIT.

These notices were issued after the Apex court  agreed to hear a plea of Andhra Pradesh (AP) government challenging the High Court order staying SIT probe into alleged irregularities in land deals in Amaravati Capital Region during the previous TDP regime.

It may be recollected that the AP High Court on September 16th had granted a stay on the actions of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the state government to conduct a comprehensive probe into various irregularities, particularly the land deals in the Amaravati Capital Region.
A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah issued notices and sought replies from the two TDP leaders within four weeks and said that it will finally hear the matter on the next date and dispose of the petition of the state government. 
“Issue notice on the special leave petitions as well as on the application for interim relief, returnable within four weeks. The respondent may file counter affidavit before the next date of hearing. The Court may decide the matter finally. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file additional documents,” the bench said in its order. 

During the hearing, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Andhra Pradesh government, said that High Court had erred in staying the operation of SIT as it was a policy decision to look into the irregularities committed in the land deals. 
 “The SIT, in accordance with term of reference started the investigation”, Dave said, adding that the High Court cannot have exercised power under Article 226 of the constitution as this was not PIL which it was hearing but writ petitions filed by some “busy bodies”. 

He said that the petition was filed by the TDP leaders and the High Court could not have entertained the petition at the first place but it went on to stay a policy decision, which was taken after proper enquiry.

He said that the TDP leaders had no locus in the matter and high court could not have interfered with the executive decision. 
Dave also pointed out that the government in fact did not rush to lodge cases against persons responsible for the irregularities but waited for six months for the cabinet sub-committee's report which thoroughly examined the issue.  

The bench agreed with the suggestion and asked Dave and the respondents TDP leaders to file additional documents and counter affidavits respectively.  ( Inputs from PTI)

Back to Top