Telangana HC Dismisses PIL Alleging Irregularities In Narayanpet-Kodangal LIS At Scrutiny Stage
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed the PIL at the scrutiny stage, observing that it lacked elements of public interest and that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain it: Reports
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and former AICC member Bakka Judson, seeking a probe by the ACB and Enforcement Directorate into alleged irregularities in the Narayanpet-Kodangal Lift Irrigation Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed the PIL at the scrutiny stage, observing that it lacked elements of public interest and that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain it.
In his petition, Judson alleged large-scale misappropriation of public funds and a quid pro quo arrangement involving Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, minister for housing and revenue Ponguleti Srinivasa Reddy, and construction firms Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. (MEIL) and Raghava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. He claimed that the project cost was inflated from ₹1,450.51 crore to ₹4,350 crore to benefit these firms, which had allegedly contributed significant amounts to the Congress through electoral bonds. He further alleged that the contract was awarded by manipulating the tendering process, inflating costs, and disqualifying competent bidders such as L&T and NCC Ltd.
The High Court Registry had raised objections to the PIL at the scrutiny stage and withheld numbering. It was placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench on Wednesday for an administrative decision on whether to admit or reject it.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned the petitioner’s bona fides, noting that he had been expelled from the Congress and that the PIL appeared politically motivated. The Bench remarked, “You (Bakka Judson) were a member of the All-India Congress Party… you were expelled from the party. Hence, there seems to be mala fide intent behind filing this petition. Moreover, the court is not satisfied with your claims of quid pro quo as alleged in the affidavit.”
The Bench held that the High Court was not the appropriate forum to examine such allegations, adding that the petitioner’s claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence. Finding no merit in the case, the court dismissed the PIL at the preliminary scrutiny stage.
