J VENKATESWARLU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying "to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring S. 13(1) and S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Arts. 14, 16, 21, proviso to Article 309, Article 311 and also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also declare Cl. 4(d) of Memo No. 700/SC/D/88-4 dated 13-2-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, if necessary by declaring Ss. 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violating the basic structure and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to drop all proceedings pursuant to the FIR No. 10/RC-NLR/95, dated 19-9-1995 initiated by the respondents hereinbefore the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(2.) During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner herein filed an application seeking permission of the Court to amend the prayer in the writ petition as under :

(3.) Before we proceed to consider the issue relating to the constitutional validity of Ss. 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the POC Act, 1988') and also the constitutional validity of Ss. 5, 6, 8, 12, 18 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Tribunals Act'), it would be appropriate to notice the relevant facts. The petitioner herein having been selected and appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department joined the service on 23-4-1988 and working as such in the same capacity. The petitioner claims to be an honest officer.