HC directs AP to show proof of public revenue in Consolidated Fund of State
The petitions also challenged the govt's decision to avail a loan of Rs 25K cr through APSDC and mortgaging of govt offices to raise funds
Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the state government to submit records to prove that all public revenue is being credited into the state’s Consolidated Fund.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice C. Praveen Kumar heard a batch of petitions on Thursday filed by TD MLA Velagapudi Ramakrishna and two others challenging the validity of Section 12 of the AP State Development Corporation Act, 2020. The petitions also challenge the government’s decision to avail a loan of Rs 25,000 crore through AP State Development Corp and mortgaging of government offices to raise funds.
Petitioner’s counsel Yalamanjula Balaji argued that even though the Governor was having sovereign power under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, it was waived by the state government in the guarantee agreement which it entered with the banks to raise a loan of Rs 25,000 crore.
He submitted that no person or institution could file a criminal or civil case against the Governor under Article 361 but the government had given such power to the financial institutions to do so in order to recover the loan dues.
The counsel also raised an objection to the mention of the Governor’s name in person for the issue of notices. He submitted that as APSDC was having no income, it might become a non-performing asset in future and all administrative offices might be locked leaving no office to the government to function.
The court asked Advocate-General S. Sriram as to why the Governor was involved and said that if the Governor was made as a guarantor in the agreement, it was a violation of Article 361.
The petitioner’s counsel requested the court to stop further mortgaging of government offices. The advocate-general argued for the dismissal of the PILs stating that they were filed with a political motive.
The court, however, observed that the PILs could not be dismissed because the petitioner belonged to a political party and said that every litigant could have his or her own identity to project the case before the court.
The court served notice to the Central government and directed it to file counter-affidavits in the case on or before November 15 and posted the next hearing on the same day.