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

1987 Supreme(AP) 160

K.BHASKARAN, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
SYED Mohd. GHOUSE – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


Y. V. ANJANEYULU, J.

( 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














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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top