CHAITANYA SAMKSHEMA SANGHAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by one Chaitanya Sankshema Sangham, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, represented by its Secretary, impleading State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, the Sub -Collector, Vijayawada; Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban Mandal, Vijayawada and the Village Administrative Officer, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, as respondents 1 to 4 respectively. After filing of the writ petition, respondents 5 to 11 impleaded themselves as party -respondents by filing W.P.M.P.No. 21910 of 2001, which was ordered by this Court on 9 -9 -2002. In the writ petition, the following reliefs are sought:

(2.) SRI P.V. Rama Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -Sangham vehemently contended that the orders made by this Court in W.P.No. 3486 of 2000 on 6 -12 -2000 and W.P.No. 8724 of 2001 on 27 -4 -2001 would not operate as res judicata and, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel pointed out that in W.P.No. 3486 of 2000 though the constitutional validity of Section 8(6) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act'), as amended by Act 16 of 1987 was challenged and the Judgment and decree passed in L.G.O.P.No. 335 of 1983 dated 27 -10 -1986 was assailed, the Court without deciding either the constitutional validity of the impugned provision or the validity of the order passed in L.G.O.P.No. 335 of 1983, disposed of the writ petition by directing the writ petitioners to work out their legal remedies before competent civil Court. The learned counsel contended that in such fact -situation, simply because the order made in L.G.O.P.No. 335 of 1983 dated 27 -10 -1986 by the I Addl. District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the constitutional validity of Section 8(6) of the Act were assailed, it cannot be said that the order made by this Court in W.P.NOS. 3486 of 2000 on 6 -12 -2000, would operate as res judicata so as to bar institution of the present writ petition. Mr. Rama Sarma, further contended that though the validity of the proceedings of the Sub -Collector, Vijayawada dated 9 -3 -2001 was assailed in W.P.No. 8427 of 2001, the Court was not called upon to decide the validity of the said proceeding on merit and, therefore, the order passed in that writ petition dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn will not come in the way of the petitioner -Sangham assailing that order again in the present writ petition. Be that as it may, the learned counsel contended that even assuming that the reliefs relating to the order made in L.G.O.P.No. 335 of 1983 and the order of the Sub -Collector, Vijayawada dated 9 -3 -2001 are not maintainable, there cannot be any bar for the petitioner -Sangham and its members to question the constitutional validity of the Act, because, that is the remedy available to them by way of judicial review only under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and such question cannot be raised either before the Civil Court or before any other judicial forum.

(3.) IT is true that in none of the earlier two writ petitions, the petitioner -Sangham or its members had assailed the constitutionality of the entire Act. It is also true that res judicata has no application in the matter of assailing the constitutionality of a statute simply because earlier the validity of an order passed under the said statute was assailed and decided. That is not the point that arises for our consideration and decision in the present case. The petitioner -Sangham wanted this Court to decide the constitutionality of the entire Act regardless of the fact whether this Court could grant any substantive relief to the petitioner -Sangham or not with regard to the Judgment and decree passed in L.G.O.P. No. 335 of 1983 dated 27 -10 -1986 and the proceedings of the Sub -Collector, Vijayawada dated 9 -7 -2003. As pointed out supra, since the petitioner -Sangham did not seek permission of this Court while withdrawing W.P.No. 8724 of 2001 to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, it should be deemed, in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service case (supra), that the petitioner -Sangham has abandoned the reliefs sought in the above writ petition and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Sangham now to file a fresh writ petition seeking the very same reliefs sought in W.P.No. 8724 of 2001. If the substantive reliefs cannot be granted to the petitioner -Sangham, deciding the constitutionality of the entire Act, at this stage, would not arise. It is well -settled that the constitutional Courts will never examine the constitutionality of a law as an academic issue. It is also well -settled that the constitutional Courts shall not undertake examination of constitutionality of a statute unless the decision on constitutionality becomes absolutely necessary to resolve a lis brought before the Court. In other words, if a lis brought before the Court could be resolved on any other ground, the constitutional Courts shall not decide the constitutionality question. Inasmuch as granting substantive reliefs to the petitioner would not arise in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service case (supra), it is trite, we cannot, at this stage, take up the constitutionality question raised by the petitioner -Sangham for decision in the present writ petition as an academic matter.