N.Giri Kumar, Nellore v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ugra Narasimnha Counsel for Respondents 1 & 3 : Government Pleader for Higher Education Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri Sudesh Anand Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri A.Charyadevi Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri K.Ratangapani Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.6 : Sri Nooty Ram Mohan Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 15 : None Dated 3/4/2006 Per Sri G.S.Singhvi, CJ In these petitions, some of which have been styled as ‘public interest litigation’, advertisements got published by different educational institutions and training institutes have been brought to the notice of the Court with a prayer that a direction be issued to the concerned authorities to register cases under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’) against false and misleading publications. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Court had taken cognizance of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the State Government is proposing to amend the 1997 Act and passed order dated 20.12.2005 which reads as under: “Learned Government Pleaders states the State Government is proposing to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’).

Without commenting on the desirability or necessity of amendment of the existing Act, we are of the view that Section 7 of the Act is comprehensive and the purpose sought to be achieved by this public interest litigation will be adequately served by framing appropriate rules for giving effect to the provisions of existing Section 7 of the Act. During the course of hearing, we enquired from the learned Government Pleader, whether criminal cases have been registered against the institutions, which have violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. In reply, she gave out that so far criminal cases have not been registered. In our opinion, the authority concerned of the Department should have been vigilant and should have registered appropriate criminal cases against the persons and the institutions who have acted fragrant disregard of prohibition contained in Section 7 of the Act. Let the authority concerned lodge FIR against the culprits within a period of 48 hours from today.

The Police Officer concerned should complete investigation within next one month and a comprehensive report be submitted before the Court on 27.1.2006. List the case on 27.1.2006.” In furtherance of the aforementioned direction, the concerned authorities registered some cases under Section 7 of the Act. We are informed by the Government Pleader that the charge sheets are filed against those who have been found prima facie guilty of issuing advertisements in violation of Section 7 of the Act. Sri Kannabhiran, learned senior counsel appearing as Amicus says that after issuance of interim directions by the Court, the spate of misleading advertisements has stopped, but submitted that once the matters are disposed of, unscrupulous elements may again issue similar misleading advertisements that would be highly detrimental to the student community. We appreciate the apprehension expressed by the learned Amicus but we have no doubt that the departmental authorities who have already become alive to the gravity of the situation and the harm likely to be caused to the student community on account of publication of misleading advertisements, will take necessary steps to stop this evil and there is no necessity for issuing further directions in the matter or keeping these petition pending.