Raghu Rama Faces Court's Anger trying to corner AP Govt!

Thu Jun 16 2022 11:39:15 GMT+0530 (IST)

YSRCP MP from Narsapuram Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishna Raju aka RRR has been a throne in the flesh for the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh. Due to various reasons, he waged war against the government and has been troubling YSRCP as a rebel MP. His behavior even made him face police custody as he was arrested for sedition charges.



After his arrest, RRR upped the ante to fight against the government. He never misses an opportunity to target the government. Going by the same instinct, the MP approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the government seeking directives to stop it from taking loans.

Through his lawyer, the Parliamentarian said that the state government amended the AP Excise Act to take a loan from the financial firms by showing the revenue generated by the AP Beverages Corporation. Unhappy with this, the MP challenged the changes made to the Excise Act.

Talking about the financial status of the state, the MP told the court that even the union government sought details from the state on the same. But the MP suffered a big shock with the High Court slamming him and asking what his intentions are behind filing the PIL.

The bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court asked if the MP wants to stop the welfare schemes. Where is Public interest in the PIL? We don't see any Public interest here, the bench observed.

Not satisfied with the arguments made by the petitioner's lawyers, the bench said that courts cannot interfere and if such PILs were allowed, then petitions will be filed challenging the schemes brought by the Union Government and State government. Who are you to dictate terms to the government on taking loans, the bench asked the MP.

Talking about the financial management in the state, the High Court said that the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) and Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG) will look into it and they will react if there are any issues. Having said that, the bench maintained that it appears like the petitioner wants to create obstacles for the welfare schemes and this does not come under public interest.