Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 356 (AP)

State Of A. P. v. P. D. Kondala Rao

2024-03-14

G.NARENDAR, NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : G.NARENDAR, J. Heard learned G P (S-I) for the Appellants and Sri V.V. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The Bench is in a piquant situation, where, though we are convinced otherwise, yet we are constrained to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, has placed reliance on the order of a Coordinate Bench, which came to be disposed of on totally dissimilar facts in W.P. No.2545 of 2020. The facts involved therein, were that, a person who was proceeded under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, was prosecuted for disproportionate assets, sought for release of his pensionary benefits and there being no loss caused, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner therein would be entitled to the benefits of G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000. In the instant case, the allegations are that the petitioner has by his actions caused certain losses. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels on the circumstances leading to the charge. Though we would have expressed our opinion, we restrain from doing so in view of the fact that the Writ Petition came to be allowed on a very short point of the facts involved being similar to the facts in W.P.No.2545 of 2020. In other words, the learned Single Judge was convinced that the instant petitioner and the petitioner in W.P.No.2545 of 2020 are similarly placed. 4. The distinction between the two cases has been pointed out supra. In that view, we are of the opinion that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the order passed in W.P.No.2545 of 2020 appears to be misplaced. 5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal requires to be allowed and accordingly, the order impugned in the Writ Appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge. 6. We request the learned Single Judge to consider out of turn hearing of the Writ Petition in view of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner has superannuated about 5 years ago. The writ appeal stands ordered accordingly. 7. The Appellants shall file their counter-affidavits within two (02) weeks from the date of the learned Single Judge first take up the case for hearing. 8. The writ appeal stands ordered accordingly. 7. The Appellants shall file their counter-affidavits within two (02) weeks from the date of the learned Single Judge first take up the case for hearing. 8. We permit the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner to make a mention for an out of turn hearing before the learned Single Judge. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.