The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's interim orders which suspended the state government's decisions to inquire into allegations of "corruption and misfeasance" during the previous Telugu Desam Party's rule in setting up Amravati as the state capital.
"We are prima facie of the opinion that some of the reasoning given by the High Court while staying the further proceedings pursuant to the two GOs issued on June 26, 2019, and February 21, 2020, may not be germane, more particularly, when the High Court has observed that the new government cannot be permitted to overturn the decisions of the previous government" a bench of Justices M R Shah and M M Sundresh said.
Allowing an appeal by the YSR Jagan Mohan Reddy government, the top court also said the High Court ought not to have granted an interim stay when it was not required as the entire matter was at "a premature nascent stage".
The High Court had suspended the probe on the basis of a prima facie finding that those were politically motivated.
The bench directed the High Court to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months.
The top court concurred with a contention of the Andhra Pradesh counsel, that the State is justified in submitting that the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued the two GOs and treated those as overturning the decisions of the previous Government.
"If the two GOs are considered, it can be seen that the same cannot be said to be overturning the earlier decisions taken by the previous government and/or to review the decisions taken by the previous government. The Sub-Committee and the SIT have been constituted to inquire into the allegations of acts of corruption and misfeasance of the previous Government," the bench said.
The court also said that the High Court ignored the fact that the state government had made a request to the central government by a letter on March 23, 2020, to refer the matter to the CBI followed by the consent given on July 13, 2020.
"It would have been better, had the High Court permitted the parties to complete the pleadings, and thereafter, decided the writ petitions one way or the other by affording ample opportunity to the parties before it," the bench said.
The top court also did not agree to the HC's rejection of a plea to make the Union government and the Enforcement Directorate as parties to the proceedings.