SINGAREDDY NAGAMANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioners through their respective counsels filed the following Writ Petitions: W.P.No.14849 of 2024, W.P.No.14851 of 2024, W.P.No.15125 of 2024, W.P.No.15139 of 2024, for issuance of mandamus, to declare the G.O.Rt.No.410 dtd. 28/6/2024 issued by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, who is arrayed as 1st respondent in the above said Writ Petitions questioning the consequential proceedings bearing No.AGC05-11021/20/2024-1 dtd. 28/6/2024 issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent herein, in unilaterally removing the petitioners herein as Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee and appointing person-in-charge, without following the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter called, the Act, 1996"), as violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution of India, on the ground that the said impugned G.O. discloses that the provision of law which was given one time application with reference to the commencing date of Amendment Act No.28 of 2019 and the G.O. clearly portrays a complete lack of application of mind and perverse and it is abuse of power by the respondents.

(2.) Subsequent to filing and pendency of the above Writ Petitions, the respondents have issued G.O.Rt.No.458 dtd. 22/7/2024 and the notification which reads thus:

(3.) The said G.O.Rt.No.458 dtd. 22/7/2024 was assailed in the Writ Petition No.16370 of 2024, W.P.No.16372 of 2024 and in W.P.No.16545 of 2024, on the ground that the invocation of the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 of the Act, 1966, is illegal and in contravention of the several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. Under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 5 of the Act, 1966, the respondents have to call for an explanation from the petitioners and they have to issue a notification containing a statement of reasons of the Government for the action taken and the G.O.Rt.No.458, the "pleasure doctrine" by the Government cannot be exercised without following the principle of law and the "Doctrine of Pleasure" has certain limitations and that the principles of natural justice are bound to be followed even if the respondents seek to invoke the said doctrine.