Vijayawada: Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued an order restraining the Tirupati additional SP J. Venkata Rao from issuing any notice under section 179 BNSS in the capacity of investigation officer as part of inquiry on allegations of supply of adulterated cow ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
A single judge bench headed by Justice N. Harinath heard a writ petition here on Thursday filed by YSRC senior leader Y.V. Subba Reddy’s aide and former special officer for AP Bhavan, K. Chinnappanna challenging the issuance of notice to him under section 179 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on June 2, 2025.
Supreme Court senior counsel C. Nageswara Rao appearing on behalf of advocate V. Uday Kumar and petitioner K. Chinnappanna submitted that the respondent J. Venkata Rao was not a member of the Special Investigation Team constituted as per directions from the Supreme Court.
As per SC orders, two officers from CBI to be nominated by its director, two officers from AP police to be nominated by the AP government and one senior officer from FSSAI to be nominated by the chairperson of FSSAI.
The senior counsel submitted that respondent Rao initially conducted inquiry on the issue and after apex court issued orders for constituting a SIT, AP’s SIT was substituted by it and the respondent Rao was not the member in it. However, respondent Rao has been repeatedly issuing notices to the petitioner asking him to appear as a witness before the SIT office at Tirupati for inquiry.
The senior counsel pointed out how Rao could assume charge in SIT though he was not officially named as a member in it.
Meanwhile, the standing counsel P.S.P Suresh Kumar appearing for CBI joint director submitted that the SIT constituted by the apex court was not a party to the proceedings and further submitted that the CBI director had acknowledged the investigation of the respondent Rao and directed him to continue the investigation in a professional manner under the SIT by taking necessary assistance from the CBI and the AP Police.
After hearing both the parties, the court asked when the respondent Rao was not specifically named as officer representing AP in the SIT, the CBI joint director could not have directed respondent Rao to conduct the investigation and posted the matter for next hearing on July 3.
Meanwhile, legal experts asked about the status of investigation carried out from from October 28, 2024 to June 19, 2025 in such a scenario and opined that the CBI must approach the apex court to explain what happened given unofficial representation in the SIT.
