AP HC reserves orders on Emaar

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Feb. 14: A division bench of Justices V. Eswaraiah and K. Suri Appa Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved its orders on a petition over the controversial deal between the AP Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Emaar Properties PJSC Ltd.

The court was shown two letters, including the letter sent by Dr. P Shankar Rao, a Congress MLA, as writ petitions. In one letter he sought a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the deal. In another letter he again sought a CBI probe, into the amassing of huge assets by Mr Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, former MP and son of Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. The letter alleged misuse of power.

In response to another petition, the bench directed Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy and his associate companies and investors, to file their counter-affidavits by March 14.

Earlier, the court had issued notices to all the respondents, including Emaar PJSC seeking their versions of the plea by Mr Shankar Rao. Emaar filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, against the decision of the court in taking up the letter and issuing notices to it. The court asked the High Court to decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition before adjudicating the main writ petition.

Presenting his arguments before the bench on behalf of Emaar, Mr L. Nageswara Rao, senior counsel of the Supreme Court, contended that the court would not entertain any politically motivated writ which was put forth under the garb of a public interest writ petition.

He said, “No political party, whether national or regional, should be allowed to use this court as a forum for settling political scores.”

Describing the plea of the petitioner as politically motivated, senior counsel said the second letter, which was sent to the court by Mr Shankar Rao, made several allegations against Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy, clearly establishing the political motives of the petitioner.

The senior counsel said the petitioner, being an MLA and a state Cabinet minister, ought to have brought such issues before the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Subba Reddy, amicus curie in the case, contended that it was a fit case to be taken up as there was a larger public interest involved.

Referring to the court’s direction in the second letter, Mr Altaf Ahmad, senior counsel from the Supreme Court, appearing for Mr Jagan Mohan’s companies, told the court that they would confine themselves to legalities while filing their counters.