APHC010405762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 20755, 18589 &18604 of 2024 1. W.P.No.20755 of 2024 Between: 1. M V SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O FLAT NO.201, VARSHITH HEIGHTS BRAHMANABASTI, WARASIGUDA SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 061 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (EXCISE), 4TH BLOCK A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. SRI KATAM LAKSHMANA BHASKAR, FLAT NO.403, GALAXY HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, SRI RAMACHANDRANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA N.T.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 2. W.P.No.18589 of 2024 Between: 1. BUSI SAROJANAMMA @ KATAM SAROJANAMMA, W/O LATE BUSI NARASIMHA RAO AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC RETD.TEACHER R/O D.NO.5-83, KATAMVARITHOTA, JETTIPALEM MOGALTUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 534 280 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (EXCISE), 4TH BLOCK A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. SRI KATAM LAKSHMANA BHASKAR, FLAT NO.403, GALAXY HEIGHTS APARTMENTS SRI RAMACHANDRANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA N.T.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 3. W.P.No.18604 of 2024 Between: 1. JADI KALYANI, W/O NARASIMHA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE R/O H.NO.11-2-516/1/A, NAMALAGUNDU PADMARAO NAGAR, SECUNDERABAD TELANGANA - 500 061 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (EXCISE), 4TH BLOCK A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. SRI KATAM LAKSHMANA BHASKAR, FLAT NO.403, GALAXY HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, SRI RAMACHANDRANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA N.T.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 4 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Common prayer in these threeWrit Petitions arethat the representation dated 19.08.2024 were not considered by the Respondent No.1 in correct perspective. 2. The Writ Petition No.20755of 2024 has been filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilance. IV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, and all consequential proceedings with respect to attaching my property bearing Flat No.207 admeasuring 1524 Sft., in Diamond Block in Flarmony Heights at D.No.12- 11-171/A2/B/3/1 to 7, at Upperbasti, with undivided and unspecified share of land 55 Sq. Yards, which was acquired vide Document No.2330/2012 of SRO, Maredpalli, without proper enquiry, and without considering the fact that the property attached is my self-acquired property from the income derived out of my legal sources, and not considering my representations including the written representation dated 19-08-2024, as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and against to the well settled principles of natural justice, and consequentially quash the G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, by calling for the entire record culminating into issuance of the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, and set aside all the consequential proceedings….” 3. The Writ Petition No.18589 of 2024 has been filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, and all consequential proceedings with respect to attaching the properties of the petitioner,under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, without proper enquiry, without considering the fact that the properties attached are self-acquired properties from out of the income arrived from the legal sources of the petitioner, and not considering the representations of the petitioner, including the representation dated 09-05- 2022, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and against to the well settled principles of natural justice, and consequentially quash the G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, by calling for entire record culminating into issuacne of the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue 5 (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, and set aside all the consequential proceedings …” 4. The Writ Petition No.18604 of 2024 has been filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, and all consequential proceedings with respect to attaching the properties of the petitioner admeasuring 244 Sq. yards situated in survey No. 176 and 177/A at Upperapally (V) Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, registered vide document No.3306/2016 of SRO, Rajendranagar, worth Rs.24,40,000/- under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, without proper enquiry, without considering the fact that the property attached is self-acquired property from out of the income arrived from legal sources of the petitioner, and not considering the representations of the petitioner including the representation dated 19-05- 2022 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and against to the well settled principles of natural justice, and consequentially quash the G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, by calling for the entire record culminating into issuance of the impugned G.O Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Vigilence.lV.2) Department, dated 31-05-2017, and set aside all the consequential proceedings…” 5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. Sri G.Venkateswarlu, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present Writ Petitions challenge G.O.Ms.No.190, Revenue (Vigilance.IV.2) Department dated 31.05.2017 issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, 1944 (for brevity ‘the Act’), and all consequential proceedings attaching the respective immovable properties of the Petitioners by mechanically tagging them as alleged benami assets of the Respondent No.5 in connection with a disproportionate assets case. It is submitted that the Petitioners are the absolute owners of their respective properties, which were acquired much prior to the initiation of proceedings and from their own lawful sources of income, including business 6 earnings, salary, pension, agricultural income and other legitimate means, and that there is no material whatsoever establishing any money trail or financial contribution from the Respondent No.5. No notice or opportunity was afforded to the Petitioners prior to issuance of the impugned G.O., no proper enquiry was conducted, and the attachment was effected in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is further submitted that the provisional/ad- interim attachment has neither been lawfully extended nor rescinded in accordance with law and that the Petitioners’ representations remain unconsidered. The impugned G.O. and consequential proceedings are arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside. 7. Sri S.Syam Sundar, the Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submits that there is a procedure contemplated under Section 5(3) of‘the Act’ that the petitioners have to approach the learnedJurisdictional Special Court seeking for appropriate remedy. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB submits that the investigation has revealed that the writ petitioner did not possess sufficient financial resources at the time of acquiring the property in question. According to the prosecution, the property valued at Rs.33,28,100/- was in fact procured by the Accused Officer (AO) in the name of the petitioner, and therefore constitutes a benami asset. Pursuant to the authorization issued under G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 31.05.2017, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam, filed Crl.M.P.No.1628 of 2017 in Crime 7 No.20/RCA/ACB/VSP/2016 before the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, seeking attachment of the concerned properties. Acting on this application, the Special Judge passed an ad-interim attachment order on 16.12.2016, which included the flat bearing No.207 in Harmony Heights, Diamond Block, Secunderabad, in accordance with the provisions of ‘the Act.’ 9. It is further argued that once an application for attachment is filed under Section 3 of ‘the Act’, the Court is required to consider to issue an ad-interim attachment order if prima facie material exists to show that the properties were illegally acquired through the commission of a scheduled offence. Upon passing such an order, notice is issued under Sections 4(2) and 4(3), enabling any person claiming an interest in the attached property to file objections under Section 4(4) of ‘the Act’. If no objections are filed, the learned District Judge must make the ad-interim order absolute under Section 5(1). If objections are filed, the Court conducts an enquiry following the procedure applicable to civil suits under Section 5(2), and thereafter either confirms, modifies, or withdraws the attachment order under Section 5(3) of ‘the Act’. 10. The Special Public Prosecutor contends that, in view of this statutory scheme, once the ad-interim attachment orders have been issued and extended from time to time by the competent Special Judge or District Judge, it is that very Court alone which is empowered to withdraw or vary the orders under Section 5(3), subject to the enquiry contemplated under Section 5(2). Therefore, the submission of the petitioner that the attachment is invalid or liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction is untenable in law. The proper 8 and exclusive remedy, according to the prosecution, lies before the jurisdictional Special Court, as expressly provided under ‘the Act’. 11. Be that as it may, there is an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 5(2) of ‘the Act’ by way of filing an application before the jurisdictional Special Court seeking for appropriate remedy. Approaching this Court by filing Writ Petition mentioning that there is no alternative efficacious remedy is not correct and proper. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file an application under Section 5(2) of ‘the Act’ before the learned Jurisdictional Special court for appropriate relief. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 27.02.2026 PRA 9 231 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 20755, 18589 &18604 of 2024 Date: 27.02.2026 PRA