Andhra Pradesh High Court Decides With Regard to Criminal Petition Pending Before the ACB Court

- Advertisement -
A single-judge bench consisting of Honorable Justice Kongara Vijayalakshmi passed orders on the Writ Petition no. 9425 of 2021. The Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner declaring the actions of the Respondent in not disposing Petitioners appeal no. 24 of 2019, as illegal and arbitrary. 

FACTS

In this case, the Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land situated in Tiruchanur village. The Petitioners have executed the general power of attorney on 20.11.2013, which was registered as a document on the file of the Sub-Registrar. No consideration was taken and the power was registered in the favor of one Sri Kallepalli Jagdishwar to manage the properties as an agent of the principal. When the Petitioners presented a deed of revocation of general powers of attorney on 20.05.2019, the same was refused by the 4th Respondent on 31.05.2019 on the grounds that the inspector of police, Tirupati addressed the letter to the 4th Respondent requesting him to furnish certified copies of certain documents and also to freeze the subjects document which was registered. Based on the said letter the 4th Respondent refused registration vide order, aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd Respondent. The clarification from the inspector was asked to pass orders in case of the appeal but there was no injunction from the competent civil court and said that the order of attachment is against the said property which is not notified as government land. The 3rd Respondent was not disposing of the appeal so aggrieved by the same the Petitioners filed the Writ Petition. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted before the court that the appeal filed was not being disposed of by the 3rd Respondent on the repeated requests of the Petitioners. The court must direct them to consider the appeal. 

The learned assistant government pleader for the Respondents submitted before the court that the 3rd Respondent would try to look into the as soon as possible. The Respondents will work according to the orders passed by the court. 

COURT’S ANALYSIS

- Advertisement -

The court observed that the 1st Petitioner executed a general power of attorney in favor of one K. Jagdishwar on 20.11.2013. A case was registered against the brother-in-law of the said person for the offenses under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ACB authorities have filed a Petition before the special court seeking an attachment of the subject property, but the date on which the Petition is filed is not mentioned in the affidavit.  

COURT’S ORDER

The court held that the 3rd Respondent has already addressed a letter to the inspector, ACB, Tirupati range, seeking clarification with regard to the subject property. The 3rd Respondent is directed to elicit the said information as expeditiously as possible and also with regard to the Criminal Petition which was pending before the ACB court. Any application if pending shall stand closed and there shall be no orders as to costs. 

Click here to view the judgment 


- Advertisement -

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About the Author

- Advertisement -

Other Posts from this Author

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -