New Delhi, Dec. 10: The Supreme Court today vacated its earlier order staying the operation of an Andhra Pradesh High Court order quashing a trial court directive that the role of former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and others in the Rs 550-crore liquor procurement scam be probed.
Today?s order effectively means that no investigation will be carried out against Naidu, Nageshwara Rao, the excise and prohibition minister in his cabinet, and other officials including IAS officer Veerabadraiah. As such, it means Naidu has won the opening round in the legal battle started by Andhra Congress functionaries led by N. Krishnakumar Goud.
A division bench of Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and Tarun Chatterjee today modified its December 6 order when it issued notices to the Andhra government, Naidu and the others while staying the high court order. The order had been passed on a special leave petition by Goud challenging the high court order.
Goud had alleged in his complaint against Naidu, Rao and 16 others played a part in allegedly conferring ?pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs 550 crore on distillers during the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000, through Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Ltd?, a government-owned limited company, thereby causing loss to the exchequer.
Distilleries like Mohan Beverages and Distilleries Ltd, Shaw Wallace and McDowells were favoured by the state beverages corporation which purchased their products at a much higher price ? almost 100 per cent more than the going rate in neighbouring states. This resulted in a Rs 550 crore loss, Goud said.
An Andhra trial court had ordered a probe into the matter, but on appeal the high court quashed it. When the matter first reached the Supreme Court, the bench stayed the operation of the high court order, meaning that investigations could begin.
But with today?s order, there can be no probe against the respondents and the outcome will depend on the case currently being argued before the apex court.
Appearing for Naidu and Rao, senior counsel Harish Salve and Altaf Ahmed told the Supreme Court it could not have stayed the operation of the high court order as the appeal had not been accompanied by a prayer to stay the order. Nor was there any application for an interim stay.
