Live
- Jagan failed to keep poll promises: Sharmila
- Beware of Jagan’s dramas, cautions Naidu
- Hyderabad: Ghose panel to quiz KCR
- Viveka Murder: Avinash innocent, asserts Jagan
- Viveka’s wife questions Jagan’s move to field Avinash
- New Delhi: 88 seats in 13 states go for polling today
- YSRCP misrule will end soon in AP, says Piyush
- Hyderabad: People have no sympathy for KCR, says Revanth Reddy
- Why has BJP failed to end paper leaks in UP?
- Sonia, Rahul, Priyanka among 40 star campaigners for Congress in AP
Andhra Pradesh High Court displeased over lack of evidence in PIL
Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Hearing a Public Interest Litigation alleging diversion of Brahmin Welfare Corporation funds to Amma Vodi scheme, the court observes there is no evidence to support the charge
- Advocate General submits to the court it should not entertain PILs filed by vested interests and based on mere talk on the street
Nelapadu (Amaravati): The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheswari and Justice Kanneganti Lalitha expressed displeasure over the insufficient evidence while filing public interest litigation.
Hearing a petition filed by Chalasani Ajay Kumar on behalf of petitioner Umamaheswar Reddy which stated that the funds of the endowments department from Brahmin Welfare Corporation were diverted to implement Amma Vodi scheme by the state government, the division bench on Friday gave time to the petitioner to file necessary documents.
Earlier, advocate general Sriram Subrahmanyam requested the High Court not to entertain every Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by vested interests based on mere street talk or speculations. "Every talk in the street against the state government cannot be converted into a PIL. I request that such PILs should not be entertained in the court of law," he said.
The petitioner did not submit any document showing that the funds were diverted from Brahmin Welfare Corporation to the Amma Vodi scheme. He also did not produce the earlier GO issued by the finance department on budgetary allocations to the Amma Vodi scheme. Apparently, the petitioner relied on a GO issued by endowments department.
The advocate general opposed it saying that the Brahmin corporation was not a part of the endowments department. The commissioner of endowments is the head of the department of the corporation and it is just under the administrative control, he said. He further pointed out that the petitioner, being a lawyer, had not shown any basis for the plea that the endowments department funds have been diverted to Amma Vodi. The GO of the endowments department did not speak of any diversion, he said.
The High Court agreed with the advocate general's argument and expressed its displeasure at the petitioner. It said there was nothing wrong with the action of the government. The court wanted to dismiss the PIL, but the petitioner sought a week's time to file further documents in support of his petition.
