Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, T.N.C.RANGA RAJAN
B.Issac Prabhakar, E.Lokendranath - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 11-30-95
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONS ACT - SECTION 8 (2) - TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - LIMITATIONS - INTERPRETATION - DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS - APPLICATION - MALA FIDES - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Seven petitioners were appointed as Directors and Chairmen of Zonal Advisory Councils of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for a period of two years. Subsequently, they received notices under Section 8(2) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, terminating their appointments with one month's notice. The petitioners challenged the legality of these orders, alleging mala fides and extraneous considerations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power conferred on the State Government under Section 8(2) of the Act to terminate the appointment of any director is unconditional and express, and is not subject to any limitations. The Court further held that the absence of a Rule prescribing a notice period under Section 8(2) does not disable the State Government from exercising the power to terminate an appointment, as long as the notice period is not less than one month. The Court also held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations is not applicable in this case, as the petitioners' appointments were made on political considerations and they had no fundamental right to continue in office. Finally, the Court held that the termination of the petitioners' appointments was not mala fide, as the stated ground in the counter affidavit by the third respondent (Chief Minister) was not an extraneous one in the context of the offices in question.
Issues: 1. Whether the power conferred on the State Government under Section 8(2) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, to terminate the appointment of any director is subject to any limitations? 2. Whether the absence of a Rule prescribing a notice period under Section 8(2) of the Act disables the State Government from exercising the power to terminate an appointment? 3. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectations is applicable in this case? 4. Whether the termination of the petitioners' appointments was mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the State Government under Section 8(2) of the Act to terminate the appointment of any director is unconditional and express, and is not subject to any limitations. 2. The absence of a Rule prescribing a notice period under Section 8(2) of the Act does not disable the State Government from exercising the power to terminate an appointment, as long as the notice period is not less than one month. 3. The doctrine of legitimate expectations is not applicable in this case, as the petitioners' appointments were made on political considerations and they had no fundamental right to continue in office. 4. The termination of the petitioners' appointments was not mala fide, as the stated ground in the counter affidavit by the third respondent (Chief Minister) was not an extraneous one in the context of the offices in question.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed and the interim orders passed earlier in all the writ petitions were vacated.
( 1 ) COMMON questions of facts and law arise for adjudication in this batch of five writ petitions and so they are disposed of by this common judgment. The seven petitioners in these five writ petitions were appointed by the Government of andhra Pradesh by a notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 122, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr. III) Department, dated 28-7-1985 as Directors in the Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Section 5 of the The Road transport Corporations Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"), for a period of two years from the date of the issue of the order. By another order in G. O. Ms. No. 123 of the same date all the seven were appointed as Chairmen of Zonal Advisory councils, the term of which was co-terminus with the term of the Board of directors. By separate orders in the form of letters dated 25-9-1958 (sic. 25-9-1995, the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh informed each of the petitioners as follows:"i am directed to state that it has been decided by Government to reconstitute the existing Board of Directors of the Public Sector undertakings. In pursuance of the above decision you are hereby given notice under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Road Transport corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) that on the expiry of the one month from the date of this letter, your appointment as Director of Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and as Chairman, Zonal advisory Council, Hyderabad City Zone of A. P. State Road Transport corporation stands terminated. "challenging the legality of the aforesaid orders, the present writ petitions have been filed.
( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of each of the writ petitions, it is averred in brief that the third respondent Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister of andhra Pradesh "engineering a coup and manoeuvred to become Chief minister of our State by removing Sri N. T. Rama Rao on whose image the 3rd respondent and 213 other M. L. As. were elected on behalf of Telugu Desam party", and as all of them protested, the third respondent bore grudge against them and therefore, the third respondent" decided to remove all the Chairman and members of various Corporations who are still loyal to Sri N. T. Rama Rao. The 3rd respondent has also "lured several Telugu Desam M. L. As. and other important persons to support him promissing that he would appoint them as chairmen and members of various Corporations after replacing the Chairmen and members who are loyal to Sri N. T. Rama Rao. " It is further averred that on the instructions of the third respondent the impugned order were issued and that the third respondent "is on record that he will remove such of those chairmen who refuse to resign. The third respondent is bent upon passing such an order immediately removing me and appointing men of his choice simultaneously. "
( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent Sri N. Chandrababu naidu it is denied that he engineered a coup and manoeuvred to become the chief Minister, and he stated "it only demonstrates the blind faith and passion with which the petitioner supports Sri N. T. Rama Rao. " After adverting to the statutory position with regard to the Zonal Advisory Councils and the Rules framed under the Road Transport Corporations Act, it is averred in para 7 of the counter affidavit that "in view of the above mentioned facts a decision was taken to terminate the appointment of the petitioner herein, as continuation of the petitioner and others who are questioning the very legitimacy of the government would create unnecessary friction in the administration of the state and hamper the implementation of the policies and the decisions of the government. " The Chief Minister further asserted in para 8 of the counter affidavit that" I have no personal ill-will towards the petitioner and the decision to remove him has been taken in the interest of the administration of the state. "
( 4 ) IN the affidavit filed
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
