Back
1987 Supreme(AP) 160
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.BHASKARAN, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
SYED Mohd.GHOUSE - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-87
The High Court has the power to issue directions for the implementation of the orders of the Administrative Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution, but this power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to avoid serious inconvenience and hardship to the persons in whose favor the matters are adjudicated upon by the Administrative tribunal.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDERS - HIGH COURT'S POWER TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTS. 226, 371D - ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ORDER, 1975 - ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to implement the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 18-12-1985 in K P. No. 1715 of 1984. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the amendment issued by the President of India in GSR no. 805 (E) dated 22-5-86 is unconstitutional and ultra vires of his powers in so far as the amendment to paragraph 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal Order, 1975 is concerned.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court has the power to issue directions for the implementation of the orders of the Administrative Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution, but this power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to avoid serious inconvenience and hardship to the persons in whose favor the matters are adjudicated upon by the Administrative tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment issued by the President of India in GSR no. 805 (E) dated 22-5-86 is unconstitutional and ultra vires of his powers? 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein to implement the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal dated 18-12-85, is ousted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the President has the power to confer jurisdiction on the Civil Courts in the matter of execution of the Administrative Tribunal's orders under Article 371d (4) (d) of the Constitution. The President is, therefore, fully competent and empowered to issue the Amendment Order in 1986 incorporating sub-paragraph (5) in Paragraph 8 of the Presidential order. 2. The court held that the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court under clause (7) of Art. 371d is confined only to such matters subject to the jurisdiction, power or authority of, or in relation to the Administrative Tribunal. In the absence of such power being conferred on the Administrative tribunal, there can be no ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise power in relation to such matters.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Administrative Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to implement the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 18-12-1985 in K P. No. 1715 of 1984. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the amendment issued by the President of India in GSR no. 805 (E) dated 22-5-86 is unconstitutional and ultra vires of his powers in so far as the amendment to paragraph 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal Order, 1975 is concerned.
( 2 ) APPEARING on behalf of respondents, 1, 2 and 3, the learned advocate-General raised the plea that this writ petition is not maintainable, and should be rejected in limine, as, according to the learned Advocate General clause (7) of Article 3710 of the Constitution of India ousts the jurisdiction of this Court to exercise. power in relation to service matters which are in the exclusive domain of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal. Quite a few writ petitions are pending before this Court wherein, the aforesaid question is involved. Considering the general importance of this question all the writ petitions were posted together.
( 3 ) WE have heard Sri P. Balakrishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this writ petition and also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of ether other writ petitioners. We have also heard the learned Advocate-General in the matter. Sri Bala krishnamurthy urged two contentions for consideration of this Court: (A) Firstly, it is submitted that the amendment issued by the president of India in GSR No. 805 (E) dated 22-5-86 to the 1975 "presidential Order bearing GSR No. 285 (E) dated 19-5-75 is unconstitutional and ultra vires of the powers of the President of India. (B) The second contention urged is that the jurisdiction of this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein to implement the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal dated 18-12-85, is not ousted and, consequently, this court can exercise power to issue the directions sought for. We shall examine the tenability of these two contentions.
( 4 ) ARTICLE 371d of the Constitution of India contains special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Power is conferred on the President of India, to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts, of the State in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education. Clause (3) of Art. 371d confers, in particular, power on the President of India to make an order providing for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority as may be specified in the order with respect to matters specified in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (3 ). Broadly speaking, the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) (b) and (c) relate to appointment, allotment or promotion in any civil service, determination of seniority and other conditions of service of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to posts in civil service of the State. Clause (4) provides that the order made by the President under clause (3) may contain such provisions with respect to the powers and authorities, and procedure of the Administrative Tribunal, including provisions with respect to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal, to punish for contempt of itself as the president may deem necessary. Clause (d) provides that the order made by the President under clause (3) may contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as the President may deem necessary. Clause (5) which generated a lot of controversy about its validity, conferred power on the State Government to annual the order of the Administrative Tribunal before it becomes effective. Clause (7) of Art. 371d may be extracted below as the present controversy centres round this provision. "cl. (7) The High for the State shall not have any powers of superinten
