G. Rami Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 1987.
(with CA. No. 2290/87 & CMP no.21914/88)
(with CA. No. 2290/87 & CMP no.21914/88)
Petitioner: G. Rami Reddy
Respondent: Govt. of A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 1987.
(with CA. No. 2290/87 & CMP no.21914/88)
(with CA. No. 2290/87 & CMP no.21914/88)
Judges: G.L. OZA & K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 1989
Appearances:
Mr. V.R. Reddy, Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocates for the Petitioner in CA No. 2069/87.
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Mr. V. Shekhar, Advocates for the Petitioners in CA No. 2290/87.
Mr. P.A. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, Mr. TVSN Chari, Advocate, Mr.K. Madhava Reddy, Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. B. Kanta Rao and Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative Discretion – Mandal Headquarters – Decision re garding location of – Govt. in the light of the orders of the High Court re-considered the matter and changed the headquarters of the Mandal – Following the decision in JT 1988 (3) SC 313, held that no right is conferred on any person to challenge the fixation of the headquarters Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974.
Cases Reffered:
1. J.R. Raghupathy etc. v. State of A.P. & Ors., JT 1988 (3) SC 313.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court set aside the Notification issued by the State Government fixing the headquarter of Mandal at Narsapuram. It appears that after the judgment of the High Court, the State preferred an appeal before this Court but later withdrew the appeal and thereafter re-considered the matter in the light of the judgment of the High Court and by a fresh Notification fixed the headquarter of the Mandal as was directed by the judgment of the High Court. Thereafter against that judgment of the High Court these two appeals have been filed. It appears that when these appeals came up there were certain matters which were already heard where this question was argued and was disposed of by the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (4) SCC -364 wherein a number of appeals raising the identical question were considered and disposed of. In this judgment this Court observed “There are no statutory provisions formulating and governing the principles for formulation of Revenue mandals or for formulation of Mandals headquarters. Having gone through the provisions of the Act, learned counsel appearing in both these appeals could not point out any provision in the Act which requires notification inviting objections in respect of fixation of headquarters of the mandals. No doubt certain guidelines were referred to and the guidelines were also considered in this judgment by this Court wherein it is observed “The guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.” After considering the various provisions and scheme of the Act this Court in the decision referred to above came to the conclusion that it is the choice of the Government to fix the headquarters and it is nothing more than that.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants before us contended that it is no doubt true that the Government has the choice but their grievance was that in this case when the notification was issued, the Government instead of exercising its own discretion in accordance with the guidelines only obeyed the orders of the High Court. In substance the grievance is the Government has accepted to obey the orders of the High Court, but unfortunately the notification does not justify such a contention. The notification only indicates that after the appeal was withdrawn the Government re-considered the matter and after reconsideration felt that what the High Court said was right and therefore changed the headquarters of the Mandal as indicated in the judgment of the High Court. In any event as already decided by this Court, it does not confer any right on any person to challenge the fixation of the head-quarters as no grievance could be made.
3. In view of the above circumstances we see no reason to entertain these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs, Rs.2,000/- in each case.
1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court set aside the Notification issued by the State Government fixing the headquarter of Mandal at Narsapuram. It appears that after the judgment of the High Court, the State preferred an appeal before this Court but later withdrew the appeal and thereafter re-considered the matter in the light of the judgment of the High Court and by a fresh Notification fixed the headquarter of the Mandal as was directed by the judgment of the High Court. Thereafter against that judgment of the High Court these two appeals have been filed. It appears that when these appeals came up there were certain matters which were already heard where this question was argued and was disposed of by the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (4) SCC -364 wherein a number of appeals raising the identical question were considered and disposed of. In this judgment this Court observed “There are no statutory provisions formulating and governing the principles for formulation of Revenue mandals or for formulation of Mandals headquarters. Having gone through the provisions of the Act, learned counsel appearing in both these appeals could not point out any provision in the Act which requires notification inviting objections in respect of fixation of headquarters of the mandals. No doubt certain guidelines were referred to and the guidelines were also considered in this judgment by this Court wherein it is observed “The guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.” After considering the various provisions and scheme of the Act this Court in the decision referred to above came to the conclusion that it is the choice of the Government to fix the headquarters and it is nothing more than that.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants before us contended that it is no doubt true that the Government has the choice but their grievance was that in this case when the notification was issued, the Government instead of exercising its own discretion in accordance with the guidelines only obeyed the orders of the High Court. In substance the grievance is the Government has accepted to obey the orders of the High Court, but unfortunately the notification does not justify such a contention. The notification only indicates that after the appeal was withdrawn the Government re-considered the matter and after reconsideration felt that what the High Court said was right and therefore changed the headquarters of the Mandal as indicated in the judgment of the High Court. In any event as already decided by this Court, it does not confer any right on any person to challenge the fixation of the head-quarters as no grievance could be made.
3. In view of the above circumstances we see no reason to entertain these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs, Rs.2,000/- in each case.
