INDLA SUBBA REDDY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main averment in the writ petition is that the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 12, Agriculture and Co-operation (Mrtg: 1) dated 21-1-1994 was issued constituting the Agricultural Market Committee for Cuddapah by the Government without independent application of mind, but only on tine basis of the list submitted by four Members of Legislative Assembly with mutual consent. I have passed the orders of status quo on 31-1-1994 as it was stated that the oath taking ceremony was on 2-2-1994. Now, Mr. E. Ella Reddy, the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent has brought to my notice that there is no oath taking ceremony under the statute or the rules framed thereunder. As such, it is a charge-taking ceremony. There is lot of dispute raised by Mr. S. Ramachander Rao as to whether the charge was taken over on 31-1-1994 as stated by the Government and the 4th respondent. While the stand of Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao is that the charge was to be taken over on 2nd February, 1994, Mr. E. Ella Reddy and the Government Pleader contend that the charge was, in fact, taken over on 31-1-1994.

(2.) AS I have heard all the learned Counsel in extenso and also perused the record in minutest detail, I am of the considered view that the Agricultural Market Committee, Cuddapah was not constituted in accordance with law. The guidelines produced before me contemplate that the Assistant Director of Marketing has to submit the list from among the growers, traders and the official nominees. But the Assistant Director, by his communication dated 24-10-1993 states that the list has been prepared in accordance with the list submitted by the M. L. As. That communication of the Assistant Director of Marketing dated 24-10-1993 ex facie shows that he did not exercise his mind independently in filing a report and has simply forwarded the list as submitted by the M. L. As. That is not a sufficient compliance of the guidelines. The right of the Representatives of People to project the candidature of the aspiring persons to become Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Members, as the case may be, of Agricultural Market Committee cannot be doubted. But, what the law contemplates, is that even after submission of the said list by the said Representatives of People, the Assistant Director concerned has to make his independent evaluation and send his list to the Director who then should verify and forward to the Government and ultimately the Government should exercise the power of nomination by proper application of mind. But, this independent application of mind is found absent in the instant case and as such, I am compelled to set aside the impugned G. O. This order does not preclude the Government from passing fresh orders of nomination on independent consideration and evaluation without reference to any recommendation. By this, I also do not mean that the persons who have been appointed under the impugned order are unfit to be appointed. But, I am setting aside this order for the simple reason that independent application of mind was not made by the authorities concerned which is the essence of the power of nomination to a public office.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.