MALAM MALLESH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Member and Chairman of the Notified Area Committee for the notified area of Ramagundam by the 1st respondent i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O. Ms. No. 131 M.A. of Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 10-3-1986. Under the said G.O. certain other Members of the said Committee were also appointed and the period for which they were appointed including the petitioner was mentioned as 5 years from the date of assuming office. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of the present Writ Petition that their term of office would expire in the month of March, 1991 and that on the date when the Writ Petition was filed i.e., 16-7-1990 the said Committee was working and he was also acting as its Chairman. The reason for approaching this Court by way of this Writ Petition is that he saw in the news paper dated 13-7-1990 a report dated 12-7-1990 stating that the Governor had appointed a Committee for Ramagundam notified area and that the Collector, Karimnagar district was appointed as its Chairman and that its term would be one year. The persons appointed as Members of the said Committee were also mentioned therein. He states that the said fresh Committee was appointed before the term of the existing committee of which he is the Chairman, expired and without notice to the existing Committee and therefore, the action of the. 1st respondent in appointing the said fresh Committee is in violation of principles of natural justice. He prays for a Writ of Mandamus "declaring the notification in Ordinance No. 5 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for appointment of new notified area committee, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, published in Daily News Paper in Andhra Jyothi, dated 12-7-1990 is null and void, and to pass such other order or orders". In the paper cutting he produced (which is in Telugu) there is no mention of any Ordinance. It is obvious that the petitioner was under the mistaken impression that the new Committee was appointed under an Ordinance and that reference to Ordinance No. 5 is without any basis.

(2.) When this Writ Petition came up for admission on 18-7-1990, notice before admission was directed and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration took notice and sought time for obtaining instructions and filing counter. He produced a copy of G.O. (Rt.) No. 661, M.A. dated 7-7-1990 under which the new Ramagundam Notified Area Committee was constituted for a period of one year from the date of assuming office, after cancelling the orders in notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 131, M.A. dated 10-3-1986. He furnished a copy of the same to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He later filed the affidavit of Assistant Secretary to Government, H.M.A. & U.D. Department, Secretariat on behalf of the respondents. In che said affidavit, the reason for constituting a new Raniagundam Notified Area Committee is stated as follows :-

(3.) Thus the only question that arises in this Writ Petition is whether the said G.O. Rt. No. 661, M.A. dated 7-7-1990 is bad for violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that under Section 389-A of the Act, the 1st respondent has got powers to cancel or modify or reconstitute the Notified Area Committees and to cancel i.e., to supersede the Notified Area Committee constituted earlier before the expiry of its terra. The provisions of Section 389-A in so far as they are relevant, are as follows :-