Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed for four weeks the probe initiated by the Crime Investigation Department into the Amaravati capital city land deals involving former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and former minister P. Narayana.
A single-judge bench headed by Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy heard the quash petition filed by both Naidu and Narayana and issued an interim order here on Friday.
The court issued the stay on the inquiry being taken up by the CID on the Amaravati land transactions based on a rule of AP Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014, Section 146, imposing bar on legal proceedings. The section says, “No suit, prosecution or proceeding shall lie against the government or authority or officer or person, for any act done or purporting to be done under or in pursuance of the Act or the rules or standing order made thereunder.”
With this, the CID’s notice served under Section 41 (a) of CrPC on Naidu and Narayana to appear before it for further inquiry on the issue on March 23 and also any chance of arrest of both of them, may not be implemented as the court also stayed further activities in the case.
The court asked the CID about its findings during its preliminary inquiry. The latter responded by saying that it could not disclose such details during the early stage of inquiry and expressed its intent to submit all details if the court would permit it to take up the inquiry further.
Naidu’s counsel and Supreme Court senior advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that it was not appropriate to say that the GO brought under the provisions of CRDA Act was not valid. He said Sections 166 and 167 of IPC were not applicable to the complaint. Luthra further said that such sections would be applicable for booking a case only when the directions from the senior officials were ignored.
He said that the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the Mangalagiri MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy and the Sections mentioned in the case were irrelevant. He also said that the case booked under the provisions of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not applicable in the case.
Narayana’s counsel Dammalapati Srinivas informed the court that the GO was amended based on a plea from the then Guntur Collector, He said that neither the Naidu nor Narayana took part in the discussion on the issue of GO. He asked how a case could be booked when the GO benefited the people.