APHC010580212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-19 AT AMARAVATI [3579]

WRIT PETITION NO: 35289 of 2022 I. S. Subba Rao ...Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Sodum Anvesha Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. S. Pranathi, learned Special GP, Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar S CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 4^th May, 2026.

LISA GILL, CJ. (Oral)

Prayer in this Writ Petition reads as under:

“…this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in abolition of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Notification in G.S.R. 30(E) dt.14-01-2020 of the 1^st Respondent published in G.O.Ms.No.7 (GAD) dt.20-1-2020 of the 2^nd Respondent and its subsequent amendment in S.O.886(E), dated 27.02.2020 of the 1^st Respondent published in G.O.Ms.No.24 (GAD) dated 09-03-2020 of the 2^nd Respondent as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, unsustainable and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reconstitute Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and pass”

2. Petitioner, who is stated to be a retired Administrative Officer, V.M.R.D.A., has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved of abolition of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, "A.P.A.T.") by way of notification, dated 14.01.2020, and subsequent amendment dated 27.02.2020, published on 09.03.2020.

3. It is stated that A.P.A.T. was constituted in terms of provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to provide redressal to the litigants in respect of their service-related grievances, instead of requiring such litigants to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. A.P.A.T. remained functional from 01.11.1989 to 13.01.2020. Vide communication dated 09.09.2019, respondent No.2 had requested respondent No.1 to abolish A.P.A.T. Subsequently, vide G.S.R.30(E) dated 14.01.2020, respondent No.1 rescinded its notification of 1989 by invoking its powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that the decision to abolish A.P.A.T. is not only flawed, but is illegal and arbitrary. There existed no power to abolish A.P.A.T. in exercise of power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Once the State Government had taken a decision to establish the Tribunal, it could not have been abolished until and unless the legislation itself is withdrawn.

6. Furthermore, the reason for withdrawal has not been specifically or clearly mentioned. There is no publication as to how respondent No.2 arrived at an opinion for recommending abolition of A.P.A.T. Citizens of the State are entitled to derive solace from beneficial legislation providing for establishment of the Tribunal, which in fact was established. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed as prayed for.

7. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the arguments as raised while submitting that the controversy as sought to be raised is no longer res integra. The matter stands conclusively decided in favour of respondent-State and against petitioner by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India and ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 309. All issues as sought to be raked up in the present Writ Petition have been discussed in detail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the matter is set to rest.

8. It is stated that notification in question abolishing A.P.A.T., was correctly issued by respondent No.1, in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. It is denied that there was no application of mind preceding decision of the State to request Union of India for abolition of Tribunal.

9. It is further submitted that after decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 26