Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
M. Subramanyam Reddy and others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.34931 of 2016
Decided on : 21-10-2022
RYTHU BAZAARS - RE-ENGAGEMENT OF ESTATE OFFICER - POLITICAL INFLUENCE - QUASHING OF RE-ENGAGEMENT ORDER - WRIT OF QUO-WARRANTO - LOCUS STANDI - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS - RULE OF LAW - POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The 6th respondent, S. Ayyappan Pillai, was working as Estate Officer of Rythu Bazaar, Tirupati. He was terminated from service on 01.09.2016 for his proved misbehavior and unsatisfactory services. He challenged the order of termination in W.P.No.30572 of 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 6th respondent was re-engaged as Estate Officer, Chittoor Rythu Bazar, Chittoor District, by the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2016. The petitioners, who are the allottees of the stalls in Rythu Bazaar, Tirupati, challenged the re-engagement of the 6th respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the re-engagement of the 6th respondent was due to political influence and recommendation under which the report dated 26.09.2016 was submitted. The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.09.2016 was passed at the request of the M.L.A, Tirupati Constituency and the request of the Minister for Marketing. The Court further held that the re-appointment of the 6th respondent was not an independent exercise of the State Authorities but was for extraneous consideration under political influence.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.09.2016 calls for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the writ petition? 3. Whether public interest litigation is maintainable in service matters?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.09.2016 was passed at the request of the M.L.A, Tirupati Constituency and the request of the Minister for Marketing. The Court further held that the re-appointment of the 6th respondent was not an independent exercise of the State Authorities but was for extraneous consideration under political influence. 2. The Court held that the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the writ petition as they can maintain a writ of Quo-Warranto in which the question of locus standi stands relaxed. 3. The Court held that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings of the 5th respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur being No.RBZ/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Vara Prasad Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri V.N. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.6-S. Ayyappan Pillai.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 5th respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur being No.RBZ/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016.
3. By the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2016, the 6th respondent has been reengaged on the post of Estate Officer at Chittoor Rythu Bzaar, Chittoor District.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the allottees of the stalls in Rythu Bzaar, Tirupati, by the competent authority, vending vegetables, rice etc., to the consumers.
5. The 6th respondent – S. Ayyappan Pillai while he was working Estate Officer of Rythu Bzaar, Tirupati allegedly misbehaved and ill-treated the farmers of the Rythu Bzaar including the petitioners for which many representations were made to the authorities upon which on consideration of the reports the services of the 6th respondent were terminated vide proceedings No.RBZ/2413/2016 dated 01.09.2016.
6. Challenging the order dated 01.09.2016, the 6th respondent filed Writ Petition No.30572 of 2016. He also approached the local M.L.A, Tirupati, and based on the endorsement of the M.L.A and also on the recommendation of the Minister for Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, he was reengaged by the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2016, during pendency of the writ petition. Thereafter the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.09.2016.
7. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding dated 26.09.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and is under the political influence favouring the 6th respondent.
8. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, further submitted that the order of termination dated 01.09.2016 was passed specifically mentioning that the 6th respondent was not following the stipulated guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.02.2012 and his services were found unsatisfactory. The order of termination was passed on the recommendation report of the Joint Collector, Chittoor. The order of termination still stands as the Writ Petition No.30572 of 2016 was got withdrawn and in view thereof, the impugned order of re-engagement dated 26.09.2016 could not be legally passed.
9. Sri P. Vara Prasada Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the 6th respondent was engaged as Estate Officer of Rythu Bzaar, Tirupati, temporarily for a period of one year which was extended year by year since 2007. His services were terminated on 01.09.2016. Later on the Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa, submitted a report L.R.No.113/2016 dated 23.09.2016 to the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bzaars, Office of the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Markets, Guntur for the reinstatement of the 6th respondent as Estate Officer. He further submitted that the report of the Regional Joint Director of Marketing was filed mentioning the recommendation of the M.L.A and the Minister for Marketing for reinstatement of the 6th respondent. Consequently, the order dated 26.09.2016 was passed which does suffer from any illegality.
10. Sri V.N. Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as they are not the aggrieved persons from the re-engagement of 6th respondent. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition even as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as PIL is not maintainable in service matters. He placed reliance on the following judgments i) K.B. Sankara Kumar vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad and others, 2013(2) ALD 389, ii) Rajnit Prasad vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 9 SCC 313, iii) Sudalakannu vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and
The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. It is for the executive to administer law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that the Government carries out ....
Transfer orders made in the interest of administrative exigency are generally not subject to judicial interference unless proven to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Point of law : When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy befor....
The main legal point established is that the registration of a complaint as a suo motu writ petition requires the approval of the Chief Justice and must comply with the prescribed procedure, includin....
Second writ petition against same order not maintainable when prior one dismissed for non-compliance with peremptory defect-removal orders; litigant's casual conduct constitutes misuse of process, pr....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
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
