(1.) These appeals involve common points and are directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is as follows :
(2.) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries submitted that approach of the Division Bench was clearly on untenable premises. Reference was made to S. 3 of the Prohibition Act, 1977 to contend that it contains a deemed provision, and assignments before and after the commencement of the Prohibition Act were covered. The said Act was enacted in the year 1977. When specific instances of illegal assignments came to the notice of the authorities, a special task force was constituted in the year 1981 and on the basis of decision taken by the concerned authorities action for cancellation was initiated. Proper opportunity was given to the parties which they failed to avail. On equitable consideration, learned single Judge had permitted a fresh adjudication. There was no reason for the Division Bench to set aside the directions given by learned single judge as there cannot be any rigid formula to determine as to what would be a reasonable period of time. On the facts of the present case, the action cannot be said to have been taken after a long period.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. P. S. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Prohibition Act has no application to the facts of the case. Assignments were made under the Rules by the Nizam. The Prohibition Act is applicable only to assignments made by the Government. "Assignments" and "Government" are defined in Ss. 2(1) and 2(2) of the Prohibition Act respectively. Though, there cannot be any rigid formula for determining the reasonable period, by no stretch of imagination a period of 30 years can be termed to be a reasonable period.