AP HC Adjourns Hearing on Amaravati IRR Case to Today

Update: 2023-11-23 19:48 GMT
Jana Sena corporator Peethala Murthy Yadav and former TD MLA Palla Srinivas have filed a petition in the High Court following the allegations leveled on Hayagriva land transactions. (Image: DC)

VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court heard on Thursday Telugu Desam president N. Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for anticipatory bail in the Amaravati Inner Ring Road alignment case.

After the petitioner’s counsels submitted their arguments before the court, the High Court adjourned the case to Friday. It will hear APCID’s arguments on the day.

The AP High Court also heard petitions filed separately by Chandrababu Naidu and former excise minister Kollu Ravindra seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the liquor scam case.

The single bench judge headed by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao that heard this case posted the next hearing to Monday with a direction that both parties submit written arguments to the court.

The advocate-general representing the AP CID submitted to the court that withdrawal of privilege fee resulted in several Telugu Desam functionaries benefiting, including S.P.Y. Reddy who owns distilleries.

The A-G said based on directions from former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, the then excise commissioner prepared a note file to withdraw privilege fee. It was accepted by the then excise minister, resulting in a revenue loss of ₹1,299 crore to the state exchequer. The CAG mentioned this revenue loss in its report.

Further, the attorney general submitted that the file pertaining to withdrawal of privilege fee had not been sent to the finance department. Neither had it been discussed in the Cabinet and the Assembly. It has purely been a political decision.

Petitioners’ counsels Nagamuthu, Dammalapati Srinivas and Posani Venkateswarlu argued that the file related to withdrawal of privilege fee did not reach the then chief minister Naidu. They underlined that the decision has been taken at the level of the then excise minister and commissioner.

The petitioners’ counsels maintained that it is unfair to consider certain lapses in policy decisions as a criminal act.
After hearing both the parties, the court directed them to submit written arguments in the case.

 

Tags:    

Similar News