Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Dasari Raja Master - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14774 of 2019
Decided On : 04-05-2021
The court examined the scope of the Governor's power to remove nominated Chairmen of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Libraries Act, 1960 (the Act). The court held that the Governor's power is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act, which requires an enquiry to be conducted before removal. The court also held that the Governor's power to remove the Chairman of the A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad under Section 7(2) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the principles laid down in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331, which require that the removal be for valid reasons and not based on political considerations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were nominated as Chairmen of the A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad and Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under the Act. The Governor issued G.O.Rt.Nos. 244 and 246 dated 17.09.2019, terminating the appointments of the petitioners without conducting any enquiry under Section 18-A of the Act and without affording them any opportunity to be heard. The petitioners challenged the impugned orders by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Governor's power to remove the petitioners under Section 11(3) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act, which requires an enquiry to be conducted before removal. The court also held that the Governor's power to remove the Chairman of the A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad under Section 7(2) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the principles laid down in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331, which require that the removal be for valid reasons and not based on political considerations.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor's power to remove nominated Chairmen of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under Section 11(3) of the Act is absolute or subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act? 2. Whether the Governor's power to remove the Chairman of the A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad under Section 7(2) of the Act is absolute or subject to the principles laid down in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Governor's power to remove the petitioners under Section 11(3) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act, which requires an enquiry to be conducted before removal. The court also held that the Governor's power to remove the Chairman of the A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad under Section 7(2) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the principles laid down in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331, which require that the removal be for valid reasons and not based on political considerations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, declared G.O.Rt.Nos. 244 and 246 dated 17.09.2019, and G.O.Rt.Nos. 247 and 248 dated 17.09.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the impugned orders so far as the termination of the petitioners is concerned. The court directed the respondents to continue the nominated Chairman to function as Chairman of the A.P Grandhalaya Parishad and Chairmans of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas for the Districts of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, West Godavari, Krishna, Prakasam, Nellore, Chittoor, Ananthapuramu, Kadapa, and Kurnool.
JUDGMENT
M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief, which is extracted hereunder:
2. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Grandhalaya Parishad. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 were appointed as Chairmans of Zilla Grandhalaya Parishad for the various districts under Sections 7, 10 & 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Libraries Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The term of nominated members and it's Chairman is three years from the date of nomination or until further orders in terms of the order of appointment/nomination. All the petitioners are Chairman of A.P. Grandhalaya Parishad and Members of respective district public libraries of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, West Godavari, Krishna, Prakasam, Nellore, Chittoor, Ananthapuramu, Kadapa and Kurnool or State public library/parishad. Insofar as Visakhapatnam District is concerned, no person was nominated as Chairman of the District Public Library.
3. While the petitioners are continuing as Chairman and Members of State Level Public Library and District Level Public Libraries, G.O.Rt.No.244 and G.O.Rt.No.246 dated 17.09.2019 were issued by the first respondent, terminating the appointment of existing nominated Chairman of A.P.Grandhalaya Parishad, Chairman and Members of all the District Level Public Libraries. It is contended that, G.O.Rt.No.244 and G.O.Rt.No.246 dated 17.09.2019 are laconic and bereft of any reasons and no notice or opportunity whatsoever was given to the incumbents of the office of the Chairman of District Public Libraries and it is not known as to why the impugned proceedings were issued, as they are patently arbitrary and unreasonable.
4. It is contended that, it is settled law that any executive action shall be based on reasons, thus the impugned proceedings are arbitrary, irrational and malafide and that there is no reason as to why the petitioners are condemned and terminated from the office of Chairman of the State Level Public Library and District Level Public Libraries. In view of the impugned proceedings in the writ petition, a person in charge has been appointed exercising power under Section 12-A of the Act. Section 12-A does not contemplate a situation which has arisen like the impugned government order and Section 12-A would come into play only when there is delay in constitution of the committee in accordance with the provision contained in Section 3 of the Act. Thus, no power under the statute to terminate a nominated Chairman, except is vested on the respondents by following the procedure prescribed under law. Further, the impugned action is behind the petitioners and they do not know the reason for passing the impugned order. Thus, it is contended that, the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and without reason or authority and consequently, sought to quash the proceedings contained in G.O.Rt.No 244 and G.O.Rt.No.246 dated 17.09.2019 and grant of consequential relief.
5. The respondents filed counter affidavit while admitting about appoin
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
