Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr. Vijay Kumar G.Srkr (Ex-Ias) vs State Of Haryana2 Clarified The ... on 24 March, 2026
APHC010406682025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 21576/2025
Between:
1. MR. VIJAY KUMAR G.SRKR (EX-IAS),, S/O KRISHNAIAH GUJJU, OCC.
RETD. GOVT EMPLOYEE AND FOUNDER PRESIDENT, LIBERATION
CONGRESS PARTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O F NO. 505, VR
APARTMENT, JADEPALLI, BESIDE MANIPAL HOSPITAL, TADEPALLI,
GUNTUR DIST. 522501.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL.
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI,
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU (ACB),
ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), CGO
COMPLEX,LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003.
5. MR PAWAN KALYAN KONIDELA, S/O. LATE KONIDALA VENKATA RAO,
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- DEPUTY CHIEF MINISTER, GOVERNMENT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH, O/O. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BALAIAH B
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
2. GP FOR HOME
3. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI
4. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:
".... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide inaction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has been 2 favorable to Respondent No. 5 and the clear governmental directives, and motivated by extraneous considerations to benefit other individuals, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide, discriminatory, and violative of Constitution of India, and Schedule -III of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and Code of Conduct for ministers (both union and state) and Consequently direct the respondents a.Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate a fair, impartial, and time-bound preliminary inquiry and/or criminal investigation into the serious allegations of misconduct, conflict of interest, and abuse of public office and state resources by Respondent No. 5, as detailed in the representation dated 25.07.2025 submitted by the Petitioner, b. Issue directions to Respondent No. 3 (CBI) to initiate a detailed, time- bound, and impartial investigation into the complaint dated July 25, 2025, with specific focus on the conflict of interest, misuse of office, and abuse of government machinery by Respondent No. 5.
c. Issue directions to Respondent No. 3 (CBI) to examine whether the conduct of Respondent No. 5 amounts to criminal misconduct under Sections 7, 11, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
d. Issue directions to Respondent No. I to examine the legality, propriety, and procedural justification for allowing extraordinary ticket pricing for the film Hari Kara Veera Mallu and whether such decisions were influenced by the official position of Respondent No. 4. 5 e. Direct an independent inquiry into the use of public funds, personnel, and resources, including police and district administration machinery, in promoting or facilitating commercial events connected to Respondent No. 5.
f. To Declare the continued engagement of Respondent No. 5 in commercial film and entertainment activities, while holding the constitutional office of Deputy Chief Minister and Minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as unconstitutional, unethical, and in violation of the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the principles of public accountability, and the doctrine of conflict of interest. g. Direct appropriate disciplinary and/or penal action against any government official found complicit in extending state resources for private gain in violation of established rules."3
2. Heard Sri B.Balaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri S.Syam Sundar Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a former Senior Civil Servant and the Founder President of a duly registered political party, and has approached this Court purely in the public interest after exhausting all the available institutional remedies. It is argued that, despite a detailed and comprehensive written complaint dated 25.07.2025, having been submitted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, setting out specific instances of misconduct, conflict of interest, and misuse of public machinery by Respondent No. 5, no inquiry or action has been initiated till date.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent No. 5, while holding the high constitutional office of Deputy Chief Minister continued active participation in the production, promotion, and commercial exploitation of a feature film titled "Hari Hara Veera Mallu," including acting in the lead role, attending promotional events, and publicly declaring his intention to continue earning income from cinema while in office. He argued that this conduct strikes at the very core of the doctrine of constitutional morality, which requires holders of public office to avoid not only actual impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety. It is further submitted that the State Government's decision to grant special permission for extraordinary hikes in ticket prices for 4 the said film, coupled with the issuance of official memos to district collectors, police authorities, and other officials to facilitate its release, demonstrates direct State support extended to a private commercial venture in which Respondent No. 5 has a substantial personal and financial interest. Such actions amount to abuse of official position and conferment of undue pecuniary advantage, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel also submitted that an official government programme, "Mana Ooru - Mana Mantri," was held and broadcast live from a cinema theatre, which is asserted to be a private commercial establishment directly connected to the film in question. It is further argued that Respondent No. 5's known association with a private film production company, PK Creative Works, while simultaneously occupying a position that enables him to influence policies, permissions, and regulatory decisions affecting the film and entertainment industry, constitutes a direct and continuing conflict of interest.
6. Learned counsel also argued that the alleged deployment of government-provided security personnel, official vehicles, and logistical support for film-related activities of Respondent No. 5 would amount to misuse of taxpayer-funded resources for private gain and a violation of norms of ministerial conduct and financial propriety. It is therefore contended that, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the involvement of a high public office, and the complete failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to act on the Petitioner's complaint, no departmental or internal inquiry can inspire public confidence. Only an investigation by an independent and credible agency can 5 ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 5, while holding a high constitutional office, has continued active engagement in private commercial film activities, thereby creating a clear and continuing conflict between public duty and personal pecuniary interest. Such conduct prima facie attracts the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including Sections 7, 11, and 13, as it involves abuse of official position and receipt of undue advantage. It is further contended that the use of government machinery, official permissions, security, and logistical support to facilitate a private commercial venture violates settled principles of administrative ethics and constitutional morality. Even though Ministers may not be strictly governed by civil service conduct rules, the principles of administrative ethics and accountability demand similar restraint.
7. Learned counsel finally submitted that the doctrine of conflict of interest and binding judicial precedents clearly prohibit the use of public office and State resources for private or partisan gain. The failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to act on the Petitioner's detailed complaint dated 25.07.2025, reflects a serious dereliction of statutory duty and raises a reasonable apprehension that any State-controlled inquiry would lack independence and credibility.
8. Per contra, the learned Advocate General and learned Additional Advocate General, in unison, submitted that the petition is politically motivated, lacks bona fides, and constitutes an abuse of writ jurisdiction. He submitted that there is no legal bar on Respondent No. 5 from pursuing artistic 6 activities while holding office, and that the doctrine of conflict of interest cannot be invoked in the absence of demonstrable illegality. It is also stated that on submission of the producer's file seeking a hike in ticket prices, the necessary permissions were granted strictly in accordance with law and uniform policy, without any special favour or deviations. It is also submitted that the official communications and security arrangements were routine measures undertaken for maintaining law and order and ensuring personal protection, and not for promoting any private commercial venture and that no public resources were misused. It is also stated that the essential ingredients of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are wholly absent, as there is no allegation or proof of demand or receipt of undue advantage. It is also argued that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were under no obligation to order an inquiry based on a mere representation, and the prayer for an independent investigation amounts to seeking a roving inquiry. Ultimately, it is stated that the petition, being founded on perception and political disagreement rather than enforceable legal rights, deserves dismissal.In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vidadala Harinadha babu and etc. v. N.T.Ramarao, Chief Minister, State of A.P and others.1
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB, while adopting the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the 1 1989 SCC OnLine AP 153 7 Anti-Corruption Bureau can be set in motion only upon disclosure of a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint, even if taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 7, 11, or 13 of the Act. In the absence of prima facie material, registration of an FIR or initiation of any investigation by the ACB would be legally impermissible, and the petition does not warrant any direction to the ACB.
10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that the Petitioner, being the Founder President of a political party, has filed the present petition, which is politically motivated. It is further stated that the CBI has no original jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. It is argued that, in view of the huge budgets of films and their nationwide presence, ticket rates are, nowadays, being hiked not only for the subject film but also for other films. The same is a policy decision taken by the State Government, and the CBI cannot interfere with the same. It is further submitted that public order and police are State subjects falling under List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. It is the primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to investigate all offences committed within its jurisdiction and that investigations can be entrusted to the CBI only in exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, no such exceptional circumstances have been placed on record to warrant entrustment of the investigation to the CBI.
11. Sri B. Balaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in reply, would submit that the reliance placed by the Respondents on the judgment in N.T. Rama 8 Rao (supra) is not applicable to the present case, as the same was rendered at a time when acting was neither recognized as an industry nor was subject to service tax or GST. It is stated that today, acting is a taxable commercial service under GST, and the film industry enjoys formal industry status. He argued that the legal and fiscal scenario has fundamentally changed, therefore, the said precedent is inapplicable to the present facts. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 5 continues to hold an active GST registration and regularly files returns, clearly demonstrating ongoing commercial engagement in the film industry even after assuming office as Deputy Chief Minister. This constitutes a direct violation of the ministerial oath and the Code of Conduct for Ministers. Further, Respondent No. 5 has not merely continued his acting career but has facilitated State benefits to the same project through the Ticket Hike Memo, which was routed through a department under his own ministerial control. This establishes a clear conflict of interest and abuse of official position. Granting financial benefits to a film in which Respondent No. 5 has a direct pecuniary interest constitutes quid pro quo corruption, squarely attracting Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the use of government machinery, security, and official programmes for promotion of the Film constitutes misuse of public resources and violates the doctrine of public trust. It is argued that the present petition does not seek disqualification but challenges corruption, abuse of power, and ethical violations. In that view, the reliance on the N.T. Rama Rao (supra) must be rejected, and the 9 impugned actions of Respondent No. 5 ought to be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Point for Determination
12. The question that falls for consideration is;
Whether interference by this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case in relation to the allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of official position, and the prayer for an independent investigation?
Determination by the Court
13. At the outset, it must be noted that the allegations made by the Petitioner raise concerns touching upon constitutional morality, conflict of interest, and standards to be followed in public office. This Court is well aware of the expectation that holders of high constitutional positions should maintain integrity. On a mere glance at the pleadings, this Court finds that the case of the Petitioner rests substantially on inferences drawn from the public conduct of Respondent No. 5, including his association with a feature film, participation in promotional activities, and the grant of ticket price enhancement by the State.
14. The Petitioner is further seeking a direction to the CBI to investigate allegations concerning conflict of interest and misuse of office. This Court opines that the matters relating to law and order, regulation of public events, administration of police, and ticket pricing for films are primarily state subjects 10 under List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Petitioner has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify entrusting the investigation to a central agency. Furthermore, the Respondents have clarified that the deployment of resources and permissions granted were routine administrative measures. There is no material evidence to suggest bias or improper conduct by the State authorities, and therefore the prayer for CBI investigation is legally unsustainable.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Aggarwal vs State of Haryana2 clarified the principles governing when courts may direct investigation by the CBI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that although constitutional courts possess the power to transfer investigations to the CBI, such power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances. A CBI probe cannot be ordered merely on vague or bald allegations against local police, nor at an early stage of investigation without substantial material indicating bias, lack of credibility, or inability of the state police to conduct a fair probe. It was emphasized that there must be concrete, prima facie evidence justifying such transfer, such as cases involving serious national or international ramifications, need to create public confidence, or to ensure complete justice.
15. With regard to a direction to Respondent No. 4 (CBI) to examine criminal misconduct under Sections 7, 11, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they relate to active corruption, abuse of official position, and receipt of undue advantage. The Petitioner has failed to present prima 2 2025 INSC 433 11 facie material of any demand, acceptance, or grant of pecuniary advantage by Respondent No. 5. The alleged facilitation of ticket pricing or participation in the film industry is admittedly in the absence of any quid pro quo or statutory violation.
16. The Petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the State's decision allowing extraordinary ticket pricing for the film and alleged possible influence by Respondent No. 5. This Court finds that the Respondents have provided satisfactory clarification that all permissions and administrative actions were taken strictly in accordance with established rules and policy, without special favour or deviation. Further, the request for hike in ticket prices, which was accorded by the Government, was based on the representation of the Producer of the said film. Administrative discretion exercised in a routine manner cannot be per se treated as abuse of office.
17. The Petitioner also seeks an inquiry into the alleged use of government machinery, personnel, and resources for promoting the film. It is the specific plea of the other side that the deployment of security personnel, official vehicles, and administrative support was primarily for law and order, personal protection, and smooth conduct of official programs. There is no material on record that these resources were directly used to promote the commercial venture of Respondent No. 5. The allegations are therefore speculative and lack any factual or documentary support.
18. The Petitioner further seeks a declaration that Respondent No. 5's continued engagement in commercial film activities violates constitutional 12 principles, ethics, and the ministerial Code of Conduct. At this juncture, it is essential to refer to the decision in N. T. Ramarao (supra), which arose from multiple writ petitions challenging the decision of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, the then Chief Minister to act in and be associated with the film Brahmarishi Viswamithra, while holding office. The petitioners therein contended that as a constitutional functionary and public servant, he was obligated to devote himself full-time to governance and that his involvement in a commercial film constituted misuse of office, conflict of interest, violation of constitution, and grounds for disqualification, warranting issuance of writs of mandamus and quo warranto. The Bench of the Hon'ble Composite High Court having examined constitutional provisions relating to ministers i.e., Articles 163 to 167 of the Constitution of India, the nature of fundamental rights, the concept of implied limitations and constitutional conventions, and the Code of Conduct for Ministers held that the Constitution does not prescribe qualifications, disqualifications, or enforceable conduct rules for Chief Ministers beyond express provisions, and no law prohibits such activity.
19. While acknowledging that holders of high office should avoid activities leading to personal gain or undermining public confidence, the Hon'ble Court in N. T. Ramarao (supra), ruled that such considerations belong to the realm of political morality and convention, not enforceable law. The Code of Conduct was deemed non-statutory and thus not enforceable judicially, and the doctrine of implied limitations was rejected as a basis for restricting the Chief Minister's actions. The Hon'ble Court also emphasized that Chief Minister 13 does not lose his fundamental rights upon assuming office, though they may be subject to reasonable restrictions only by law, not by judicial creation. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, reaffirming the principle that judicial review is confined to legal and constitutional violations, not political or ethical disputes. It is beneficial to extract the conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Court, which are;
"50. We may now summarise our findings:
(i) There is no provision in the Constitution, nor is there any provision of law which regulates the conduct of a Minister which expression includes Chief Minister and Prime Minister.
There is also no constitutional or statutory provision prohibiting a Minister from engaging himself in any profession, occupation, or business, whether actively for gain, or otherwise.
(ii) The Code of Conduct issued by the Union Government and by the State Government is of great significance and sanctity, though it is not statutory. It fills a great void. The Code is evolved with an eye upon good Government and clean administration, not only in action but also in appearance. It is binding upon all Ministers. It prescribes the authority who shall ensure observance thereof. The procedure to be followed by him and the action; to be taken thereon is also left to him. Similar rules have also been evolved in United Kingdom. However, for the reasons given hereinbefore, the petitioners cannot seek to enforce the Code through the Court.
(iii) A person is not deprived of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution on account of his accepting the office of Minister. At the same time, the nature and character of the office, the duties and functions attached to it, and the power and position which it carries, necessarily involve and imply certain restrictions on those fundamental rights to the extent they are called for to ensure a proper and effective discharge of the powers and functions of the office. For instance, no Minister may carry on any profession, or business, actively, for gain, while in office. Such activity 14 would be inconsistent with the high office, he holds. It may provide occasion for open abuse. The Code of Conduct evolved by the Union Government and the State Government does contain salutary restrictions; but, since the Code cannot be treated as law within the meaning of Cls. (2) to (6) of Art. 19, the restrictions contained therein cannot be enforced by Court.
(iv) It is not possible to infer or deduce limitations whether of the nature contained in the Code of Conduct or otherwise from the scheme or text of the Constitution applying the theory of implied. limitations/implied restrictions. Indeed, the theory of implied restrictions has been rejected by a majority of Judges in Kesavananda Bharati, by this Court.
(v) Constitutional Convention relate to the working of the Government. They determine relations between the three wings of the State. They are distinct from the rules of conduct of Ministers, or other high constitutional functionaries. Even otherwise, it is not shown that any particular conventions governing the conduct of Ministers have grown in England, or in India, which have been enforced by Courts.
(vi) The office of a Minister is a political office. It is an elective office. His oath of office obligates him to discharge the duties of Minister faithfully and conscientiously. The oath of office, however, does not say that he shall devote all his time to his official duties. It is a matter left to his good sense and his conscience. Holders of high constitutional offices like Ministers must act with a sense of self-discipline and with due regard to, and understanding of democratic norms and constitutional values even in the matter of their personal conduct. The fact that Court may not regulate their personal conduct is beside the point.
(vii) The fact that a Minister has been held to be a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Penal Code, 1860, does not mean hat he is a public servant for all purposes. A Minister cannot be equated to a public servant. The concept of Master and servant has no application or relevance to the office of a Minister. The Rules of Conduct applicable to civil servants, or the Fundamental Rules requiring civil servants to place all their time at the disposal of the Government) are not applicable to Ministers.
15
(viii) This Court has no power to enquire into the desirability or otherwise of the respondents' conduct, nor has it power to restrain him from engaging himself in the said activity. Much less can it declare him to be disqualified from holding the office of Chief Minister on the said ground. In this case the petitioners are not questioning any particular executive action, or inaction of the respondent, but are questioning his personal conduct. There is no decision of any Court in this country, or for that matter, in England, where the Courts have undertaken to regulate the personal conduct of a Minister, or have sought to enforce moral or ethical rules of personal behaviour.
(ix) In the facts and circumstances, we do not wish to we do not think it necessary to express opinion on the question whether the activity of the respondent complained of herein is relatable to the fundamental right guaranteed to him by sub- cl. (a) of Cl. (1) of Art. 19, or sub-cl. (g) thereof.
(x) The allegation that acting in, and directing of the said film amounts to an appeal to voters on the grounds of religion cannot be enquired into by this Court, at this stage, in a writ petition. It is premature. The occasion for such complaint has not arisen yet. We refuse to look into the allegation.
51. For the reasons given above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
20. It is also pertinent to note that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The said right is however not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). In the case of holders of high constitutional office, the exercise of such right is necessarily linked by the nature of the office, the duties attached and the overarching requirement of maintaining integrity in public life. In light of the aforesaid legal position, the professional or commercial engagements of a 16 public office-holder i.e., Respondent No. 5 cannot by themselves, be construed as a violation of constitutional or legal obligations, unless such engagements are shown to be in direct conflict with official duties or in contravention of statutory provisions.
21. Admittedly, there is no statutory or constitutional prohibition preventing a holder of public office from pursuing artistic or cultural activities, so long as such activities do not interfere with official duties or violate any law. The Petitioner has failed to place any material demonstrating that the conduct of Respondent No. 5 is in violation of any constitutional provision, statutory mandate or a binding rule. It is well settled and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra,3 that a statutory duty towards the applicant must exist before it can be enforced through Mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same. Therefore, the relief of declaration as sought in this regard is untenable. Moreover, even independent of the decision in N. T. Ramarao (supra), the Petitioner has failed to establish enforceable legal injury or violation warranting interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
22. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that the petition is motivated, based on speculation and perception, and fails to disclose adequate material for the existence of cognizable offence or statutory violation that would justify intervention of this Court. All the prayers sought in the 3 (2020) 9 SCC 356 17 petition, including directions for inquiry, investigation, or declarations, are without merit. In the absence of prima facie evidence of misconduct, abuse of office, or illegal gain, the petition is liable to be dismissed in its entirety.
23. This Court further opines that the filing of such a petition, lacking any factual or legal foundation, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and results in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time. It is well settled that frivolous and vexatious litigation must be discouraged to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent misuse of the judicial forum. In token of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to impose costs.
24. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Costs of Rs.10,000/- are imposed, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to spend the said amount to meet the necessities of the children in the Government Home. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.03.2026 Dinesh 18 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.21576 of 2025 Dt.24.03.2026 Dinesh