A SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. KRISHNAKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are sought to be filed by party-in-person seeking review of the order passed by us in Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 1992, dated 2- 11-1992, and against the order in WAMP, No. 2012/1992 concerning interim relief. We have heard the part-in-person fully in support of these applications. We have also taken into consideration the written arguments filed by him along with the two Annexures in support of these applications.

(2.) Now, at the outset it may be stated that if the order in the Writ Appeal cannot be reviewed, then no further question would remain for consideration of proper interim relief to be given to the applicant. So far as the review application against the order in the Writ Appeal is concerned, it may be stated that after hearing him we have taken the view that there was no substance in the Writ Appeal which was moved against the order dated 12-8-1992 in Writ Petition No. (SR-31919/1992). In that writ petition the applicant had prayed for quashing of the order of compulsory retirement dated 26-10-1991. The said order was passed in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradsh. The applicant (party-in-person in the present writ petition) had joined the Governor of Andhra Pradesh as party-respondent. The learned Judge rightly took the view that the writ petition was not maintainable as the order was not passed by the Governor in his personal capacity; Article 361(1) of the Constitution barred such a petition. We had concurred with the said view and we had also observed in our judgment that the reliance placed on Clause (4) of Article 361 was of no avail, as these proceedings are not instituted against the Governor in respect of any act done, or purported to be done in his personal capacity. We had also agreed with the learned Single Judge that the applicant will have his remedy under the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, if so advised. In these review proceedings an attempt is made by the petitioner to re-argue the matter. That is not open to him, as held by the Supreme Court in AT. Sharma Vs. Shri A.P. Sharma AIR 1979 SC 1047, as review proceedings are not by way of fresh hearing of the matter, nor are they in the nature of appellate proceedings. No error much less any patent error could be pointed out in the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by us in our order dismissing the Writ Appeal.

(3.) We have gone through the written arguments filed by the party-in-person. So far as the maintainability is concerned, he has tried to re-argue the matter which is not permissible. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, as-we have said nothing on merits, all his contentions regarding breach of fundamental rights and the pernicious adverse effect of the order on him and the members of his family, especially his daughter who is studying in Russia, cannot be gone into in these review proceedings. All these contentions are open to the petitioner in a properly constituted proceedings. So far as the Annexures to the written arguments are concerned, the first Annexure refers to the maintainability of the review petition. As we have observed above, the question of maintainability has been decided by us on an interpretation of Article 361(1) read with Article 361(4); it cannot be re-argued before us. So far as Annexure-ll regarding infringement of fundamental rights is concerned, even assuming that such effects are caused by the impugned order of compulsory retirement, that cannot be made the subject-matter of review proceedings, as neither the learned Single Judge nor we in Division Bench have gone into the controversy centering round the order of compulsory retirement. As observed above, questions about the merits of the order are kept open for the applicant to agitate the same before appropriate forum, if so advised.