SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(SC) 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
D.Subba Rao, Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. and others Respondents.
S.L.P.(Civil) No. 3144 of 1973, D/17-1-1974.

Headnote:REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT OF PANCHAYAT SAMITHI

       -held, order would provisionally remain and the State Government would give opportunity to appellant to make representation against the charges.

       - see decision in D. Subba Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 94=1974 U.J. (SC) 143.

       

Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The appellant was elected as the president of the panchayat samithi of Bapatla on July 18, 1970. The Government for reasons set out in its communication issued, a show-cause notice dated the 26th September, 1972, asking the president to submit an explanation within 21 days of the receipt of that notice why he should not be removed. Thereafter, various communications and other proceedings took place with which we are not concerned in the light of the final order that we are passing. We have suggested a course to the parties, which counsel fairly agreed, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

2. The appellant has contended that the order removing him from his office as the president was passed without hearing him and the respondent State has contested his ground taking up the stand that an opportunity has been afforded but has not been taken advantage of. We are not going into the merits of the matter, because we feel that the ends of justice would be served by the following direction:

The order impugned will be provisionally maintained, but the appellant will be given an opportunity by the State government to make his representation against the charges set out in the notice dated 26-9-1972, within six weeks from today. The appellant will be given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records within three weeks from today. The representation made by the appellant will be considered afresh by the State Government and on such a consideration, it will pass an order affirming, modifying or cancelling the order dated the 6th January, 1973.

3. Till the second order is passed, status quo will continue, in the sense that the vice-president, who is now discharging the functions of the president will continue to do so and no fresh by-election will be held. The second order that the State Government passes will not preclude the seeking of remedies under the law, if any.

4. The appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1975 SC 94=1974 U.J. (SC) 143.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top