Judgment : (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. Alleging tons of ill-gotten money to the credit of Sri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy 52nd Respondent herein, defrauding the public exchequer under the clout of his father, Late Dr. Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, by managing allotments of lands, public properties and permissions, favouring various companies and individuals, lease and licenses at a price, for less than the market rate prevalent at the relevant point of time, besides, the sham transactions under the guise of sale and purchase of shares and the investments made in the companies, Shri Shankar Rao, Member of the Legislative Assembly, now a Minister in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has sought indulgence of this court through a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking a direction for prosecution of the respondents. Letter was registered as a “Taken up writ petition” and after service of notices on the respondents, the matter was heard from 134.2.2011 onwards. 2. A similar letter of the same MLA alleging giving away land belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, to a large extent to the men of his choice has also been separately entertained as a “Taken up Writ Petition No. 23958 of 2010”, maintainability whereof was questioned by the respondents, which could not prevail on the court and the said petition was held to be maintainable vide order dated 25.2.2011, accordingly it was admitted to hearing, directing notices to the parties to file additional pleadings, if they so desire, The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8366 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.3.2011. The petitioner did not stop there but filed a review petition bearing No. WPMP 11284 of 2011 in WP No. 29358 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 20.4.2011 after having considered the challenge in detail. Challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition on hand is sought to be maintained on the grounds similar to the ones urged before us in W.P.No.29358 of 2010, as is evidenced by the proceedings of this court dated 14.3.2011 and in fairness there is no attempt on the part of the counsel for the respondents to be at variance on that court. Nevertheless, the respondents are within their rights to raise the additional grounds. Nevertheless, the respondents are within their rights to raise the additional grounds. Situated thus, when this writ petition was taken up yesterday, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.52 questioned it s maintainability on the ground of failure of the MLA to specify the reasons which prompted him to write a letter instead of lodging FIR with the Police of filing a complaint before the Magistrate. He contended further that respondent No.52 being a political opponent of the complainant, makes it manifest that the letter is politically motivated one. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kunga Nima Lepcha and others Vs. State of Sikkim and others ((2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 513). He also submitted that necessary ingredients for issuance of writ of mandamus are not fulfilled and thereby the power of judicial review does not deserve to be exercised in this case, particularly when the Enforcement Directorate is seized of the complaints which form the subject matter of some of the allegations in the letter of the petitioner. 3. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, and Mr. V. Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents as well as other learned counsel appearing for other respondents have adopted the submissions of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel and they made supplementary submissions. We have also heard Mr. N. Subba Reddy, the amicus curiae. During the hearing, we pointed out to the learned senior counsel appearing in the matter that in view of this court appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court, the locus standi or the participation of the MLA on whose letters these proceedings were initiated, pales into insignificance as he is not any more participating in the proceedings and he has merely brought to the notice of this Court the serious allegations appearing against the respondents. Although the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition almost on similar grounds was turned down vide order dated 25.2.2011 in WP No. 29358 of 2010 after due application of mind, yet an additional word on our part on respect of maintainability. The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Although the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition almost on similar grounds was turned down vide order dated 25.2.2011 in WP No. 29358 of 2010 after due application of mind, yet an additional word on our part on respect of maintainability. The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others ((2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 402) has categorized the public interest litigation into three broad phases and in our view the present case falls within the third phase which deals with directions to be issued by the courts in maintaining probity, transparency and integrity in governance. Similarly in Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ and Anr, Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others ((2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613) the Supreme Court held that in deciding the maintainability of public interest litigation, the sufficiency of the petitioner’s interest must be examined with reference to the subject matter of the complaint. 4. In the light of the settled legal position, the contentions of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.52 that there is no complaint or FIR filed by the petitioner nor there is any explanation as to why he resorted to writing a letter to this Court and that this writ petition is politically motivated, etc, cannot sustain, inasmuch as what is relevant for consideration is the credibility of the petitioner and the subject matter of the allegations which prima facie show serious infringement of probity, transparency and integrity in the governance and in order to protect the public interest and to safeguard the natural resources of the State, the intervention by this Court is just and necessary. In that view of the matter, therefore, we are satisfied that substantial public interest is involved in the matter and it is just and necessary to admit the writ petition for its detailed adjudication. The writ petition is, therefore, admitted, rule nisi shall be issued. Call for records. 5. We have passed an order on 11.7.2011 in W.P. No.29358 of 2010 directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry and had indicated our inclination to the learned counsel to follow the suit, among other things because of similarity of accusation so as to enable them to advance arguments in opposition to our proposal, if any, and heard them. Mr. We have passed an order on 11.7.2011 in W.P. No.29358 of 2010 directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry and had indicated our inclination to the learned counsel to follow the suit, among other things because of similarity of accusation so as to enable them to advance arguments in opposition to our proposal, if any, and heard them. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel submitted that preliminary enquiry, if ordered, may not be a roving enquiry but a specific enquiry with respect to named investors or beneficiaries in the affidavits filed herein. He also pointed out that the procedure for preliminary enquiry may ensure that no coercive steps are taken so that the companies or their investors do not scare away. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. andothers Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another ((2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 521) which was approved by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others ((2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 571). The learned counsel also placed before us a judgment dated 20.5.2011 of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4909 of 2010, wherein it is held that a thorough probe by a special cell was necessary as the allegations involved national ramifications including the violations as to money laundering. 6. With a view to appreciate the contention of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, detailed in the preceding paragraph, we would like to reproduce paragraph 5 of our order dated 11-7-2o11 passed in writ petition No.29358 of 2010 which reads; “5. Apart from the allegations of the allotment of the Government property to the disadvantage of the Government, sale against an amount lesser than the market value, there is non-observance of the conditionalties of the agreement, affecting the public exchequer adversely. Going by the averments made in the application, counters filed by the official respondents and the material available, We are of the opinion that prima facie the public exchequer has been subjected to a huge loss by fraud which has necessitated a detailed and careful examination in the light of the record by a reliable and competent agency of the Government for out aid and assistance in pronouncement of the final decision/directions. To achieve the objective it will be appropriate to direct a preliminary enquiry (short of registration of crimes and arrests) into the allegations detailed in the application and the documents annexed therewith, including the ones mentioned hereinabove by the CBI to which course of action, the respondents are not averse and they want us to have it conducted by anyone other than the CBI.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 7. It is quite clear from the above reproduction that we have directed preliminary enquiry and submission of report thereof for our own aid and assistance in pronouncement of the final decision/ directions and with the same purpose we have ordered preliminary enquiry in this case also. We have also made it clear that preliminary enquiry would not amount to registration of crimes and arrests, therefore, there appears no foundation for the apprehension registered before us by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel. More so, when a power is available to the court and facts of the case prima facie disclose swindling of public money and property as is true of the case on hand, exercise of such power becomes obligatory. It may not be out of place to mention that we had pointedly asked the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents to refer to any judicial pronouncement which would restrain this court from issuing directions for preliminary enquiry but they could refer to none and to our knowledge also there is no such decision, rightly so because direction for a preliminary enquiry is a power which is both inherent and incidental to the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, exercise whereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner prima facie involve serious violations of various Acts including the Prevention of Corruption Act, Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, Foreign Exchange (Maintenance and Regulation Act) etc. More importantly the preliminary enquiry and its report by a specialized and highly credible investigating agency like CBI would correctly assist this Court in final adjudication of the matter. That apart the preliminary enquiry we have proposed in this matter is a tool similar to the one devised by the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others ((2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 380). 9. That apart the preliminary enquiry we have proposed in this matter is a tool similar to the one devised by the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others ((2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 380). 9. For what is stated herein above, there shall be a direction to the Director, CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations detailed in the application, counter of the State and its functionaries, counters, additional affidavits and other material placed before us and shall report to us whether prima facie commission of offence(s) under any Act by any of the respondents or anyone else is (are) made out. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to handover the complete paper books of the writ petitions and the material annexed thereto to an officer to be deputed by the Director CBI forthwith, who shall conduct a preliminary enquiry either himself or have it conducted by any Officer(s) authorized by him. The Director or the Officer(s) to whom the enquiry is entrusted, shall be free to take assistance from any person/institution/officers/officials, if required. Needless to say that such person/institution/officers/officials shall be bound to render the assistance asked for. The respondents shall also ensure their cooperation to the CBI without fail. In case of failure to cooperate, the CBI shall bring it to our notice for appropriate orders. The report of the enquiry shall be filed in a sealed cover with an additional copy in a separate sealed cover within two weeks with the Registrar (Judicial). 10. Be posted after two weeks. W.P.No.6604 of 2011: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are members of the Telugu Desam Party, a registered political party seeking writ of mandamus against inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in initiating penal action against the respondent No.6 (respondent No.52 in WP No. 794 of 2011). In view of the fact that the allegations made in this writ petition are similar to the allegations in WP No. 794 of 2011, this writ petition shall also stand admitted and rule nisi shall be issued. Call for records. This writ petition shall be listed along with WP No.794 of 2011. No separate interim order is required to be passed. Call for records. This writ petition shall be listed along with WP No.794 of 2011. No separate interim order is required to be passed. W.P.No.6979 of 2011: This writ petition is filed by an Advocate in the nature of public interest litigation questioning the validity of certain Government Orders issued in favour of the respondents 7 to 10, seeking directions for investigation/probe into the illegalities in investment etc against respondent No.7 (respondent No.52 in WP NO. 794 and respondent No. 6 in W.P. No.6604 of 2011). Since allegations in this petition are similar to above referred petitions, this writ petition is also admitted. Rule nisi shall be issued. Call for records. Be posted along with W.P. No.794 of 2011 and WP No.6604 of 2011. No interim orders are called for in this writ petition.