APHC010402722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 147 of 2025 [3483] Smt. Cheera Rajeswari ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Konduri Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Animal Husbandary CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 06th August 2025 P C : The present PIL has been filed purportedly in public interest challenging the order, dated 23.12.2024, whereby respondent No.6 – Dr. K. Raja Gopala Rao, Deputy Director (Animal Husbandary) has been placed in-charge of the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Srikakulam. The charge, according to the order impugned, was given to respondent No.6 on account of the retirement of the then District Animal Husbandary Officer, Srikakulam, to avoid “dislocation of the smooth administration at the office of District Animal Husbandry Office”. 2 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_147 _2025 2. The basis of the challenge in the present writ petition is that the said respondent No.6 could not have been given the additional charge inasmuch as there was an F.I.R registered against respondent No.6 and other officers bearing F.I.R. No.97 of 2024, dated 18.05.2024, under Sections 379, 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 425 & 500 r/w 34 IPC in addition to certain other inquiries which were pending against the said respondent. Apart from this, it is stated that the said respondent No.6 was also the respondent in a complaint registered as Case No.2587 of 2023 before the Lokayukta. The Anti-Corruption Bureau is also stated to have started the investigation against the said respondent on a complaint filed by a farmer Seepana Venkata Rao. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner feels aggrieved that the said respondent No.6, when he was facing such allegations, ought not to have been given the additional charge of the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It appears, on the face of it, that the petition is filed with a view to somehow prevent the private respondent No.6 from continuing as DAHO, which appears to be an interim arrangement made on account of the retirement of one of the officers, who was earlier holding the said post. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said respondent ought not to be permitted to 3 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_147 _2025 work at all till the conclusion of the investigation as also the inquiries, which are underway against him and other officers, but the entire emphasis appears to be to somehow prevent the said respondent from working in the post of DAHO. While it may be true that some inquires are pending against respondent No.6, however, mere pendency of such F.I.R or inquiry/investigation cannot prevent the official respondents to make such arrangements in the interest of administration in the interregnum until such time as the inquiries and investigations conclusively prove the involvement of the said respondent and hold the officer guilty. In our opinion, the present petition has been filed with an oblique motive to target the said respondent No.6 in the guise of public interest litigation. 5. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B1, the Apex Court held that public interest litigation is a weapon which had to be used with great care and circumspection and judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice vested interests and publicity seeking was not lurking. It held that public interest litigation was to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivery of social justice to the citizens and for purposes of genuine redressal of the public wrong or public injury and not to become a facilitator of personal vendetta. 1 (2004) 3 SCC 349 4 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_147 _2025 In Neetu v. State of Punjab2, the Apex Court in para No.7 clearly held as under: “7. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object.” 6. In our opinion, the present petition is a classic example of the personal vendetta being cleverly camouflaged in the shape of a public interest litigation which we cannot permit. Be that as it may, we dismiss this petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within three months from the date of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 2 (2007) 10 SCC 614 5 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_147 _2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition (PIL) No:147 of 2025 DATE : 06.08.2025 AKN 250