Libertatem Magazine

PIL Filed Before the Andhra Pradesh HC Accusing the State of Diverting Funds Towards Amma Vodi Scheme

Contents of this Page

Mr Ummamaheshwar Reddy filed a petition before the honourable court alleging diversion of funds for the Brahmin Welfare Corporation.

Facts of the Case

The two-Judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice J.K. Maheswari and Justice K. Lalitha Kumari heard the PIL about the diversion of funds. The petitioner was then given 7 days to file the necessary documents. The petitioner had alleged a diversion of approx ₹24.5 crores to the said scheme by the government. As a response to the said PIL, the counsel representing the Government requested the court not to take note of PILs based on rumours and hearsay. The petitioner, according to the opposing counsel, relied on the GO issued by the endowment department. 

Submissions on Behalf of the Parties 

The petitioner alleged that the Government claimed to use surplus endowment fund for the welfare of Brahmins when the Act did not give preference to any particular section of the Hindus. He contended that Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 specified the use of the surplus. it was submitted that any surplus available could not be used otherwise. Albeit, the act did not give preference to any specific segment. 

Opposing this, the Advocate General submitted that Brahmin Welfare Corporation was not a part of the Endowments Department. He further stated that G.O. RT No.18, through which the budgetary grant was made had not been filed. The petitioner had not filed any evidence supporting his claims. It was contended that the GO did not state any such terms. He asserted that the endowments commissioner is the HoD of the said corporation and it is under administrative control.

Court’s Decision

The court did not find anything wrong with the actions of the government. The bench expressed its disappointment over lack of evidence and wanted to dismiss the petition. However, on the petitioner’s request, the matter was adjourned to a future date and gave the petitioner time to file the required documents. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. 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.

About the Author