Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 649
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
V. Subhramanyam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 140, 141 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Jagadishwar Reddy
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the authority of the Government to dissolve the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness and the necessity of specific grounds for such actions.
Headnote:
(A) Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 - Sections 3, 4, and 9 - Dissolution of Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board - The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 59, dated 13.05.2015, dissolving the Board without proper consideration of the appellants' explanations, violating principles of natural justice - The court emphasized the necessity of specific grounds for dissolution and adherence to procedural fairness. (Paras 5, 10, 12, 15)
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - The court ruled that the dissolution of the Board must follow due process, including providing adequate notice and grounds for action, ensuring that the affected parties can defend themselves. (Paras 5.1, 5.7)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed as members of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board but faced dissolution by the Government citing irregularities and lack of proper grounds for their appointment. The appellants contended that the dissolution was arbitrary and violated their rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dissolution was justified under the provisions of the Act, as the appellants had committed irregularities and the Government had followed due process in issuing the dissolution order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the dissolution of the Board was justified and whether the appellants were given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government acted within its authority to dissolve the Board, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the necessity of specific grounds for such actions.
Result: Writ appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
1. These two intra court appeals are filed against the common order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 14695 of 2015 and 20454 of 2016.
2. Heard Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General Office appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Since the issue involved in the two writ appeals is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, W.A. No. 141 of 2017 is being referred.
Brief facts of the case:
4. The case of the appellant is that the Government of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for brevity) had issued G.O.Ms. No. 687 dated 14.12.2012, reconstituting the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board (‘Board’ for brevity) and appointing the appellant in W.A. No. 141 of 2017 as Chairman and appellant in W.A. No. 140 of 2017 as Member of the Board along with other persons as members for a period of four years. After bifurcation of the composite State and formation of State of Telangana, respondent No. 1 had issued G.O.Ms. No. 11, dated 05.07.2014, adopting the Act and appointing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department as Special Officer to discharge the functions of the Board under Section 9(4) of the Act.
4.1. Questioning the said appointment, the appellant and other member have filed two writ petitions viz. W.P. No. 18833 of 2014 and W.P. No. 34573 of 2014 before erstwhile composite High Court, wherein learned Single Judge was pleased to grant interim order on 22.01.2015 suspending G.O.Ms. No. 11, dated 05.07.2014, and issued consequential direction directing the respondents therein to restore files etc. to the Board. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents therein have filed intra Court appeal vide W.A. (S.R.) No. 30488 of 2015 and W.A. (S.R.) No. 46879 of 2015 and the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the said writ appeals on 29.04.2015 by setting aside G.O.Ms. No. 11 in relation to appointment of the Special Officer.
4.2. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 had issued a show-cause notice dated 05.05.2015, directing the appellant and other members to submit explanation as to why the Board which was constituted under G.O.Ms. No. 687, dated 14.12.2012 should not be dissolved. Pursuant to the same, the appellant submitted explanation on 07.05.2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed order without properly considering the explanation, vide G.O.Ms. Nos.59 and 60, Revenue (Assignment-I), dated 13.05.2015, dissolving the Board and appointing Principal Secretary, Revenue as authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Board under Section 9 (4) of the Act. Questioning the above said G.Os. the appellant and other Members, namely K.V. Subba Rao and V. Subramanyam, have filed W.P. Nos. 14695 of 2015, 17179 of 2015 and 20454 of 2016 respectively and learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by its common order dated 06.01.2017, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred these writ appeals.
Contentions of learned counsel for Appellants:
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants contended that respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice on 05.05.2015, without mentioning any grounds for dissolution of the Board, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and passed order vide G.O.Ms. No. 59, dated 13.05.2015 dissolving the Board even without considering the explanation and issued G.O.Ms. No. 60, dated 13.05.2015, appointing Principal Secretary to Government, for discharging the duties of the Board. He further contended that dissolution of the Board is not in consonance of the show-cause notice and also is in gross violation of the principles of natur
