Live
- Ahmedabad Plane Crash: Boeing Issues Support Statement Following Air India Flight 171 Crash
- Indian Government Mourns Air India Crash Victims As Rescue Operations Continue
- Air India Plane Crash: All You Need to Know About the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner
- Pilot gave Mayday call to Ahmedabad ATC before crash
- Boeing shares plunge over 6 pc in pre-market trade after Ahmedabad plane crash
- Air India plane crash: Control rooms set up in Ahmedabad, New Delhi
- Air India Flight 171 Crash: Gautam Adani, Priyanka Gandhi, Rajnath Singh and Others Express Condolences
- Amit Shah Reacts to Air India Flight AI171 Crash in Ahmedabad
- Breaking: Flight AI171 Crashes After Takeoff; Air India Chairman Expresses Deep Sorrow
SC rejects Nagam Janardhan Reddy's please on Palamuru-Rangareddy Project
supreme court of india
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by former minister Nagam Janardhan Reddy, which alleged...
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by former minister Nagam Janardhan Reddy, which alleged financial irregularities in the Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS).
A bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and including Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found no merit in the case to warrant interference with a prior ruling from the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nagam on 3rd December 2018. The Supreme Court noted that four similar cases filed by Dr. Nagam concerning the same project have either been dismissed or disposed of, attaining finality with no pending appeals.
The court highlighted the findings of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), who stated that the allegations made by Dr. Nagam were unsubstantiated. During the hearing, the bench questioned senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing Dr. Nagam, on the grounds for claiming that a revision of rates was fraudulent. Mr. Bhushan requested the bench to focus on the second part of the petition, which sought a directive for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged fraud. However, Justice Nagarathna expressed scepticism, suggesting that revisions of rates may simply reflect the state’s commercial discretion and that courts cannot oversee every government action.
Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General and counsel for Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL), raised concerns about the maintainability of the SLP, stating that Dr. Nagam had filed numerous cases over the past decade as a form of harassment. He pointed to the CVC's prior findings regarding Dr. Nagam's complaints.
After thorough consideration of the arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion to decline the CBI investigation request. The bench concluded that the High Court had justified reasons for its decision, leading to the dismissal of the SLP on the grounds that it lacked merit.
