High Court clears Naidu of misuse of power

Hyderabad, Apr 26 (UNI) The AP High Court today dismissed a revision petition by P Govardhan Reddy, former Munugodu MLA, querying orders of ACB Cases Special Judge on April 19, 2004, refusing to take cognizance of a complaint by him against former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu over land allotment to a private company at a throw-away price.

Mr Reddy had moved the Special Court that then Chief Minister had abused official position and got a resolution passed for allotment of 450 acre of land at Kancha Guchi Bowli in Ranga Reddy district to IMG Academics Bharat Pvt Ltd. He said Mr Naidu was liable for prosecution under the Anti-Corruption Act. The Special Judge, on examining the complaint, found no case was made out, which could be referred to police for investigation. He did not take the case into cognizance.

Against this, Mr Reddy moved the High Court saying the trial court was carried away by bombast and did not look into the content of the complaint. He gave details on how much precious land fully developed, was being given to IMG Academics through one Ahobila Rao, a close associate of Mr Naidu.

He charged that Mr Naidu bulldozed his Cabinet colleagues into accepting his proposal. The state suffered loss of Rs 500 crore.

Mr Justice Swaroop Reddy felt it was a collective Cabinet decision to allot land to IMG. There had been instances of governments allotting land to private entrepreneurs for developing industries and this was one such. The very fact that IMG proposed to spend Rs 500 crore in the first phase and Rs 200 crore in the second phase showed the land was allotted considering public interest.

The act could not be attributed to any person individually and so, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Jayalalithaa case, the judge said a Cabinet decision, even if defective, could not be called into question under provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act. Much less could it be a subject matter of trial in any court of law.

He said the complaint was misplaced and the accused did not play any role in his private capacity, nor was there evidence he was personally benefited by the deal. At best, it could be an erroneous Cabinet decision.

In such a context, asking the trial court to refer the complaint to the police amounted to abuse of the process of the court and this could not be permitted by this court, the Judge concluded.

UNI XR AA RL DB2046