APHC010096992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6545/2026 Between: SRI ALLA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE ALL DASARADHARAMI REDDY AGED 58 YEARS, OCC FORMER LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST, VMIDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEAR UDYOG BHAWAN, METRO STATION, MAULANA AZAD RD, NEW DELHI - 110011. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), PLOT NO. 5-B, 6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MEIRG, NEW DELHI- 110003. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522302. 5. THE SUPDT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 1-83- 21/4, MVP DOUBLERD, SECTOR 8, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530017. 6. THE CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT CID, ANDHRA PRADESH,REP. BY ITS ADDL. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW-II, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522302. 7. SR NARA CHANDRA BABU NAIDU, S/O KARJURA NAIDU AGED 76 YEARS, OCC CHIEF MINISTER OF ANDHRA PRADESH R/O LINGAMANENIGUES HOUSE, KARAKATTA, UNDAVALLI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 8. SRI NARA LOKESH, S/O CHANDRA BABU NAIDU AGED 45 YEARS, OCC MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND IT, ANDHRA 2 PRADESH, R/O LINGAMANENIGUES HOUSE, KARAKATTA, UNDAVALLI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 9. SRI P NARAYANA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC MINISTER FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, AP SECRETARIATE, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 10. M/S LEPL INFOCITY PRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDRESS 59-14-10, 1ST FLOOR, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, NH-5, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520008. 11. M/S LEPL SMART CITY PRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADDRESS D NO 8-2-686/49/D/21/1, PLOT NO 21, ROAD NO 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, 500033, INDIA 12. M/S LINGAMANENI AGRICULTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (CIN) UOL 110AP2005PTC046734 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 46734). REP BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDRESS 59A-1-4, 4TH FLOOR, RING ROAD, NH-5, BESIDE MARIS STELLA COLLEGE, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520008, INDIA. 13. M/S LINGAMANENIAGRO DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER CIN, IS UDL 110AP2005PTC046733 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 46733) REP BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDRESS 59A-1-4, 4TH FLOOR, RING ROAD, NH-5, BESIDE MARIS STELLA COLLEGE, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520008, INDIA 14. JAYANI ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER CIN, IS U45200AP2007PTC054679 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 54679) REP BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDRESS 59A-1-4, 4TH FLOOR, RING ROAD, NH-5, BESIDE MARIS STELLA COLLEGE, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520008. 15. M/S RAMAKRISHNA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDRESS DR N054-15-20, SRINAGAR COLONY, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA 520008 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI 3 3. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation,i.ethe 2nd respondent to take over the case and investigate into the CrimeNo.l6 of 2022 dated 09.05.2022 registered for the offences U/s 120(b), 409, 420, 34,35,36,37,166,167,217,218,of IPC and Sec 13(2) R/w Section 13(1) (c) 86 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 of AP ClDMangalagiri, Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh, within the supervision of this Hon'ble court in a time bound manner as the respondent NO 6 has colluded with the un-official respondents especially with the respondent no 7 who is present Chief Minister of the Andhra Pradesh also reviewing authority of the performance appraisal of AP CID DGP vide its GO RT NO 726 dated 10.04.2021 and conducting biased investigation is nothing but illegal arbitrary and infringement to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to equality before law, non-arbitrary State action, and the right to a fair investigation as an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberlyand consequently direct the respondents CBI to complete the investigation in to the crime within time bound manner considering the seriousness involved in the case.” 2. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the present petition is hereby disposed of, at the stage of admission. 3. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Mukul Rohatgi and Sri Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CID. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI is in attendance. 4 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Crime No.16 of 2022, registered by CID, Andhra Pradesh, involves serious allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to decisions taken between 2014–2019 concerning the Amaravati Capital City project. In the present crime, charge sheet is also filed in February 2024 and the case is now at the stage of trial. Learned counsel would further submit that, preliminary enquiry has been conducted in the present crime, voluminous documents have been filed and charge sheet has also been filed in February, 2024 before the ACB Court, Vijayawada. It is further submitted that, charge sheet was returned on 02.03.2024 on technical grounds. Subsequently, the Government has been changed. Learned counsel would further submit that the prime Accused in this crime is none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister of State of A.P. As per G.O.Rt.No.726 dated 10.04.2021, the Chief Minister is the functional authority and performance appraiser of all IPS Officers in the State including the DIG, A.P.C.I.D. It is further submitted that AP CID Police are colluded with the Unofficial Respondents, who are political bigwigs and are trying to refer the case as “mistake of fact”. In such circumstances, continuation of investigation by a State-controlled agency fails to satisfy the constitutional standards of equality and fair investigation under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of their contentions, learned counsel has placed 5 reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babubhai & Co., vs. State of Gujarat1. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of State and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CID, in unison, would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present crime has been completed, case was referred as “mistake of fact”, after issuing notice to the Petitioner, and closure report has also been filed, which is pending consideration before the ACB Court, Vijayawada. The judgment in Babubhai’s case referred to supra, pertains to Gujarat riots incident and is an exceptional circumstance, wherein, there was failure of complete law and order and hence, the investigation was handed over to CBI in the said case. The said judgment is not applicable to the present case. It is further submitted that, issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police, but it must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind. It is submitted that, there are no such exceptional circumstances in the present case, which is registered by a person, who belongs to rival political group. Learned 1 (1985) 2 SCC 732 6 Senior Counsel would finally submit that there are no grounds to entertain the present writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel on both sides and perused the material placed on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the question of transfer of investigation to the CBI, while acknowledging that Constitutional Courts have the power to do so, clarifies that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases where justice so demands. While dealing with the present issue, the two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar And Others Versus State Of Chhattisgarh and Others2, categorically held as follows: “44. It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high Government officials or influential persons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of the State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, has made the following observations pointing out the situations where the prayer for investigation by the CBI should be allowed: “70.… In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers should be exercised, but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598 7 provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In subsequent pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the power to direct a CBI investigation should not be exercised routinely or on the basis of vague or unsubstantiated allegations. In Vinay Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors3., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Courts should direct a CBI investigation only where the prima facie material discloses something calling for such investigation and not on the basis of mere allegations of bias or dissatisfaction with the local agency without cogent material. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised that orders directing investigation to be carried out by the CBI are measures of last resort, justified when the integrity of the investigative process has been compromised to the extent that it affects the conscience of the court or public faith in the justice delivery system. 8. It is also well-established that mere displeasure of a party about the investigation or unsubstantiated claims of conflict of interest against a local police agency cannot, by itself, justify the invocation of extraordinary 3 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 8 powers to transfer investigation to the CBI. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that mere dissatisfaction with the investigation conducted by a State agency or a desire for an investigation by the CBI is not a ground in itself and the petitioner must establish prima facie that the investigation is tainted, biased, or incapable of yielding a fair and impartial probe. 9. In the present case, on the materials filed before this Court, the Petitioner has not placed any prima facie material indicative of a compromised investigation or any cogent basis to conclude that the State agency is incapable of conducting an impartial probe. The charge sheet has been filed, and the closure report, which was filed after issuing notice to the Petitioner herein, is pending adjudication before the ACB Court, Vijayawada. The mere fact that the prime Accused in the present case is the Chief Minister and is the appraiser of the Investigating Officer or that the Petitioner expresses apprehensions about the continuation of investigation by a State agency, do not satisfy the stringent test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transferring the investigation to the CBI. 10. As rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondents, in Babubhai & Co.’s case referred to supra, the facts were specific to the case at hand and cannot be read as establishing a general proposition that investigation by a State agency must be replaced by a CBI probe. The 4 (2020) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2386 9 settled law requires the existence of exceptional circumstances where there is compelling evidence of prejudice, bias, or failure of the investigatory process itself to justify a transfer to the CBI. 11. In view of the above principles and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the present case is not one of the rare or exceptional circumstances, which would require a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation. The Petitioner’s apprehensions do not warrant exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction. There are no merits in this writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dinesh 30.03.2026 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No.6545 of 2026 30.03.2026 Dinesh