ORDER :- This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Government of Andhra and the State of Andhra.

2. The petitioner is a B.E. of the Madras University. He was working in the II Circle as an Assistant Engineer. On 15-1-1953, an order of Government dated 22-12-1952 was served on him imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. Against that order, he preferred an appeal to the Governor of Madras. After the Andhra State was formed, the papers were transferred to the Governor of Andhra for disposal.

When he wrote to the Governor of Andhra for information, he received a reply from the Secretary that his petition was sent to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Andhra, for disposal. Among other grounds, he claimed that the action of the Governor in asking the Government to dispose of the appeal was without jurisdiction and reduced the provisions for an appeal to a farce, as the very authority which passed the original orders was asked to dispose of the appeal. He asks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Governor, as well as the Government.

3. I gave notice to the Advocate General to argue the point, whether a writ would lie in the circumstances against the Governor of Andhra. I am grateful to him for the assistance he has given to the Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the immunity given to the Governor in Art. 361(1) of the Constitution is confined to the powers and duties conferred on him under the Constitution and not to powers and duties conferred on him otherwise. He would say that the Governor has the powers to entertain an appeal and a duty to hear it under R. 20(c) of the Madras Civil Services Rules and the immunity given under Art. 361(1) cannot be extended to the powers exercisable by him under those rules, whereas the learned Advocate-General broadly contended that Art. 361 makes a distinction between the powers and duties of the Governors Office and his acts unconnected with that office, and that, in the former case, there is an absolute bar from any process of Court, whereas in the latter case, it is only protected to a limited extent.

5. It will be convenient at this stage to notice the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the case-law throwing some light on those provisions.

"Article 361(1) : The President, or the Governor, or the Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.

XX XX XX

Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.

2. No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor or the Rajapramukh of a State in any Court during his term of office.

3. No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or the Governor or the Rajapramukh of a State shall issue from any Court during his term of office.

4. No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or the Governor or Rajapramukh of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any Court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office, as President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor or Rajpramukh as the case may be or left at his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor, the name, description and the place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which he claims."

6. The aforesaid provisions prescribe the limits of the G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document