The PIL alleged irregularities on the part of Chandrababu Naidu and his son Nara Lokesh while allotting land worth several crores of rupees.

PIL seeking probe into Andhra CM Naidu and Nara Lokesh withdrawn after Hyd HC hearingImages: Nara Lokesh/Facebook
news Controversy Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 11:34

A Vijayawada-based advocate and former Junior Civil Judge, Jada Sravan Kumar, withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Wednesday after he had moved the Hyderabad High Court seeking a probe against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and his son and IT Minister Nara Lokesh.

Alleging massive irregularities in the allotment of land worth several crores of rupees, the petitioner also named AP Non-Resident Telugu Society (APNRT) CEO Vemuri Ravi Kumar and former IT minister Palle Raghunatha Reddy. Sravan, in his petition, had alleged that Naidu, Lokesh and others had misused their position of power to earn more than Rs 25,000 crore through quid pro quo means.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and V Ramasubramanian was hearing the petition on Wednesday, but refused to take action. Instead, it asked for more details to back the allegations. Following this, the petitioner withdrew his PIL.

Speaking to TNM, Sravan said, "The High Court has accorded permission to me to file a fresh petition after procuring the required details."

Sravan alleged that the state government allotted land worth several crore rupees under the guise of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs).

"Though these companies are functioning on paper, they don't exist in reality. Corruption worth several crores of rupees has taken place," he alleged.

Sravan said that he is planning to move court again after appealing to the Information Commissioner.

In May this year, the Andhra Pradesh government has rejected an RTI petition by an Ongole-based activist, seeking the expenditures incurred by Naidu and Lokesh in the state-sponsored foreign tours they have undertaken ever since they occupied their positions. 

The RTI was rejected citing section 8(1)(E) of the RTI Act 2005 (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information).

 
Become a TNM Member for just Rs 999!
You can also support us with a one-time payment.