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

1977 Supreme(AP) 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO, V.MADHAVA RAO
Governing Body of the Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-77

A law providing for taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period in public interest or in order to secure proper management of the property is not void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

RANGARAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE (TAKING OVER OF MANAGEMENT) ACT, 1977 - ARTICLE 31-A (1) (B) OF THE CONSTITUTION - TAKING OVER OF MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY BY THE STATE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD IN PUBLIC INTEREST - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, two societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, challenged the validity of the Rangaraya Medical College (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1977, which vested the management of the first petitioner college in the Government. The petitioners contended that the ordinance was in substance one relating to compulsory acquisition of the petitioners' properties without making provision for payment of adequate compensation and violates Article. 31 (2) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned legislation is one covered by Art. 31-A (1) (b) of the Constitution and is therefore not liable to be struck down as violating Art. 31.

Issues: 1. Whether the Rangaraya Medical College (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1977 is a law providing for taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period in public interest or in order to secure proper management of the property within the meaning of Article 31-A (1) (b) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Act is void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court observed that the Act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 31-A (1) (b) of the Constitution, namely, (a) the legislation must be one whereby the management of any property is taken over by the state; (b) it should be for a limited period; (c) it should be in the public interest or in order to secure proper management of the property. 2. The Court held that the Act is not void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE two petitioners before us are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. The second petitioner, the Medical Education Society, Kakinada Collected donations from public and started the Sri Rangaraya Memorial Medical College at Kakinada in 1958. As the amount collected was not sufficient for the building and the equipment for the college and also for its running expenses, the society began to collect not only the tuition fees from the students, but also donations from persons who sponsor the applications for admission by the students. The college received donation of Rs. 6,000. 00 from each student in 1958. It was increased from time to time and at present it is receiving a sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 from each student. The increase was necessitated by reason of the increased expenditure consequent on the rise in prices of laboratory equipment etc. and increase in pay allowances of the teachers and other staff. In 1964 the State Government and the Andhra University to which the college was affiliated insisted on the college having a separate governing body instead of the governing body of the Medical Education Society. Therefore, a separate society with its own constitution was registered under the name, Kakinada with a separate governing body and the second petitioner handed over the management of the college to the new governing body by a resolution dated 11-4-1964. The governing body consists among other of the following ex-officio members. The Secretary, Ministry of Health, State of Andhra Pradesh, the Director of Medical and Health Service, the District Collector, East Godavari and the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital, Kakinada.

( 2 ) THOUGH no grant is given to the college by the Government, the Government has given the college the facility of using the Government General Hospital, Kakinada for the purpose of teaching as without this facility the college could not function. The expenditure relating to the salaries etc. , of the clinical staff working in the college and Hospital is being incurred by the Government. There were persistent protests by the public against the exaction of Rs. 16,000. 00 per seat for every candidate admitted into the college and there were demands, in the Legislature of the State, from the Central Government. , and from the public that the petitioner and other medical colleges which were collecting capitation fee, should be taken over by the Government. The Government therefore decided that such colleges including the petitioner college should be taken over by the Government in due course.

( 3 ) AS a preliminary step to such acquisition the Government passed an ordinance called the Rangaraya Medical College (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance 6 of 1977 whereby the management of the first petitioner college was vested in the Government. The petitioners thereupon filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus restraining the Government from enforcing the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance 6 of 1977.

( 4 ) SEVERAL grounds were urged in the writ petition against the validity of the Ordinance. The principal contention was that the ordinance is in substance one relating to compulsory acquisition of the petitioners properties without making provision for payment of adequate compensation and violates Article. 31 (2) of the Constitution. Although the ordinance purported to vest only the management of the college in the Government, the various provisions of the Ordinance made it clear that, under the guise of management, all the assets and rights of the college were also taken over. It was submitted that the Ordinance was therefore outside the purview of Article. 31-A (1) (b) of the Constitution which covers only cases of taking over the management of property for a limited period in public interest. Lastly, it was urged that the Ordinance was brought about by the Government at the instance of


















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