Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 128
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BILAL NAZKI, G.ROHINI
P.Janardhana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.,revenue Department (Land Acquisition) - Respondent
Decided On : 01-24-03
Headnote:
Inquiry Act – Section 3 7 – Formation and Ceasing of a Commission – Writ Petition – These two writ petitions has been filed challenging g. O. Ms. No. 544, Rev. (LA) Dept – Now, this order of the government which was passed discontinuing the Commission has been challenged in this writ Petition – Grounds taken in the Writ Petition but the main grounds which were agitated before this Court are narrated as below; (1) that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide (2) that there was no change in the circumstances and no new reasons which would warrant discontinuation of the commission as the reasons which existed on its formation continued to exist (3) that the commission was discontinued with retrospective effect without obtaining concurrence of the High Court, and (4) that the discontinuance of the Commission was negation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal – Held, The crux of the allegations, however, was that the State Government was trying to conceal something and protect some people, but in the counter-affidavit details have been given as to what action had already been taken in the matter and what are the proceedings that are still going on – Therefore, in the light of allegations and the reply made by the State Court will not be in a position to decide at this stage about the genuineness of these allegations – Not even a single person has been named as respondent in the Writ Petition against whom mala fides could be attributed – Therefore, we are not going into the question of mala fides at all – So, it is abundantly clear that when the Commission had been appointed by the Government on its own without there being a resolution by the Legislature the Government has the power to declare that the Commission had ceased to exist – The parameters are already fixed by this Court that this Court cannot give directions for appointment of a Commission under Section 3 of the Commissions of inquiry Act – It is a discretion which has to be exercised by the Government – In Court’s view, the same parameters would apply to exercise of power under Section 7 – Now, the only argument that remains is whether the Supreme Court had directed continuance of Commission – Court have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court – At no point of time the Supreme court considered the desirability of continuance of the Commission – The High Court by passing the order had merely recognized the willingness of the state Government to appoint a Commission, therefore, even when the Commission had been appointed in the first instance it had been appointed by the State Government alone and the High Court had only recognized the fact while disposing of the writ Petition – Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court – The Supreme Court did not set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that it was desirable to continue the commission – After the Supreme Court passed its order the Commission did not automatically come into being again – Its term had expired on 1-3-99 and it was again for the State Government to consider whether its life had to be extended or it had to be allowed to die – Court have found sufficient reasons given by the State government for coming to a conclusion that it was not necessary to continue the commission beyond 1-3-1999 –Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions raise same questions of fact and law; therefore they are decided by this common judgment. Writ petition No. 21111 of 2001 has been filed by sri P. Janardhana Reddy, a former leader of the Congress Legislature Party challenging g. O. Ms. No. 544, Rev. (LA) Deptt. , dated 4-8-2001. The same G. O has been challenged in the other Writ Petition being W. P. No. 22993 of 2001. This Writ Petition has been filed by one of the claimants whose land had been acquired. He also claimed the same relief which has been claimed in the first Writ Petition. The facts mentioned in writ Petition No. 21111/2001 are taken for the disposal of these writ petitions.
( 2 ) THERE were reports that certain irregularities had been committed by various authorities in payment of compensation in land acquisition matters pertaining to Visakhapatnam District. This incident came to be known as "yeleru scam". A Writ Petition being W. P. No. 1235/97 had been filed by one v. Madhusudhan Reddy before the High court of A. P. seeking a direction for C. B. I to investigate into the matter. A suo motu Writ petition was also entertained by the High court being W. P. No. 26456/96 on the basis of a report given by the District Judge, visakhapatnam to the Chief Justice. When these writ petitions came up for hearing the state Government expressed its willingness to appoint a sitting Judge of the High Court as Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 which resulted in disposal of the Writ Petitions on 29-1-97. In pursuance of the judgment the state Government with the concurrence of the High Court appointed Mr. Justice s. R. Nayak, the then sitting Judge of the high Court of A. P as Commission of inquiry. Thereafter, Mr. Justice S. R. Nayak resigned and Mr. Justice B. K. Somasekhara, the then sitting Judge of the High Court of a. P was appointed as Commission of inquiry vide G. O. Ms. No. 468 dated 2-6-97. On 21-5-98 a Writ Petition was filed/before the High Court being W. P. No. 14282/98 by one P. Pothi Naidu who was one of the accused in the scam. He questioned the constitution and continuance of Mr. Justice b. K. Somasekhara as Commission of inquiry. The Writ Petition was opposed by the State. The petitioner in that Writ Petition contended that there were legal infirmities in setting up of the Commission. The government maintained that there were no legal infirmities in appointment of the commission. Consequently the Division bench of the High Court allowed the Writ petition filed by Mr. Poti Naidu holding that the Commission had not been validly constituted in accordance with Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. This order was passed on 23rd June, 1999. This judgment was neither challenged by Sri Poti naidu who was petitioner in that Writ petition nor the State Government before the supreme Court but it was challenged by the present Writ Petitioner by way of an SLP being SLP (C) No. 14350/99 before the supreme Court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the State government had played fraud on the High court by concealing material facts which led to the formation and appointment of a commission under the Commissions of inquiry Act. This SLP was opposed by the state Government before the Supreme Court who filed counter-affidavit on 26th february, 2000 and an additional counter- affidvait on 19th April, 2000. The Apex court decided the matter by allowing Civil appeal No. 4138/2001 arising out of the SLP mentioned above by judgment dated 13-7-99 in W. P. No. 14282/98 was set aside by the supreme Court. After the judgment of the division Bench was set aside by the supreme Court a representation was made to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 21st July, 2001 by the Writ Petitioner requesting him to take necessary steps to restore the Commission forthwith. Since there was no response a notice was given on 4-8-2001 to the Government of A. P. through the Secretary to Gover
