MALLIKARJUNA RAO R V Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case has been lodged on the ground of deliberate non-compliance of the direction contained in the judgment dated 16-10-1998 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15463/1997 and Batch. In the said batch of writ petitions, several questions were raised including the constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The constitutional validity was upheld basing upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India but the aspect which was not dealt with by Chandra Kumar's case i.e., the tenure of the appointees, was dealt with by the Division Bench and held that for maintaining the independence of judiciary, tenure of 5 years shall not be read into Section 8 of the Act and that it shall be read that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall hold the office till the attainment of 65 years of age from the date of assumption of office and the Members - both judicial and administrative shall hold the office till the attainment of 62 years of age from the date of assumption of office. As there was provision in the Act for considering the sitting or retired High Court Judges as also the Advocates having standing of more than 10 years to be appointed to the post of Vice-Chairman and as no advocate was considered in the State for appointment to the post of either Judicial Member or Vice-Chairman in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, a direction was given to consider not only the Judicial Officers but also the Advocates for appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman and also Judicial Members.

(2.) In this contempt case, the complaint is that the post of Vice-Chairman to be filled up by Judicial Member has fallen vacant and one Mr. A. Venkat Reddy has been appointed and his appointment has been made in utter violation of the directions issusd by this Court.

(3.) What Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao learned Senior Counsel appearing tor the petitioner, contends is that it is a different case if the Advocate/s is/are considered and are found to be unfit to hold the office of the Vice-Chairman but in the instant case, no Advocate has been considered at all and as such it amounts to contempt.