PIDIKITI MADHAVA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These various petitions, either for writ of mandamus or for ''nformation in the nature of quo warranto, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise certain common questions, legal and constitutional in nature. W.P. Nos. 1393, 1394) 1359) 1387 and 1360 of 1964 are mainly concerned with the validity and constitutionality of some of the provisions of Act XIII of 1964 which has retrospectively amended the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samit and Zilla Parishads Act (XXXV of 1959) and validated the action taken by the Government without having initial jurisdiction in that behalf. The other Writ Petitions, 1604, 1605,. 1453 and 1454 of 1964, raising as they do incidentally the question of validity of certain provisions of the Amending Act, are mainly concerned with the question whether the rules made in the year 1964 under section 69 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act (XXXV of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) became effective on and July, 1964, even before they were laid before the Legislature as contemplated by the Statute. They also question the legality of the elections held thereunder before that date. Similar is the purpose of W.P. No. 216 of 1964 which as in W.P. No. 1220 of 1964 calls in question the validity of the Ordinance containing, inter alia, the rules of conduct of elections promulgated by the Governor. The circumstances in which the amendment was effected both in the Act and the rules and the Ordinance was promulgated may be shortly stated. The Government in purported exercise of their power under clause (b) of section 2 of the Act, issued a notificationG.O. Ms. 532, dated I5th May of 1964. redelimiting all the blocks in the State of Andhra Pradesh. And further in purported exercise of their power conferred under section 3 (3) and sub-section (12) of section 14 of the Act, by notification G.O. Ms. 598, dated 2nd June, 1964, reconstituted Panchayat Samithis specified in the schedule for the blocks as redelimited by the notification G.O. Ms. 532, dated 15th May, 1964 as from 1st July, 1964. As a result of this redelimitation, the existing number of blocks was reduced from 448 to 321 and the number o Panchayat Samithis was accordingly shortened. Thus 127 Samithis stood abolished without any specific notification of abolition and their territories were annexed to tha newly constituted Samithis. The old Samithis constituted as they were, were bodies corporate having perpetual succession and common seal with powers to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into contracts and to sue and be sued in their corporate name. The abolition of such Samithis unwarranted as it was in the absence of any specific provision, gave occasion for the said writ proceedings in this Court. It was submitted that the power of abolition of the statutorily constituted Panchayat Samithis being a legislative power must be conferred specifically and cannot, in the absence of such conferment, be assumed as incidental or supplemental or even consequential power of redelimitation. Further section 2 (b) which was invoked by the Government to exercise the power of redelimitation did not in fact confer any such power by any specific provision in the Statute on the Government. Besides if it was the intention of the Legislature to grant the power to abolish the Samithis a specific provision would have been made as it is generally done in statutes of this kind. As there was no statutory power conferred on the Government, it was submitted that the abolition was in excess of their power. It was on that basis that Writ Petitions Nos. 976 and 1067 of 1964, etc. challenging the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 532 and the elections held thereafter were originally filed in this Court.

(2.) These petitions were disposed of by a common judgment on 7th July, 1964 (see V. Ramchandra Reddy and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1965) 1 An.W.R. 317.) accepting the contention of the petitioners and quashing G.O. Ms. 532, dated 14th May, 1964 as being ultra vires the powers purporting to be vested in the Government under section 2 (b). It was quashed not only to the extent of redelimitation of the blocks but also in relating to abolition of the Samithis and reconstitution of other Samithis. While these petitions were pending, Bill No. XII of 1964 was introduced in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 30th June, 1964, for the amendment of the various provisions of the Act and also probably with a view to supersede Ordinance No. II promulgated on 26th June, 1963, the validity of which is said to have been already brought into question. After the said Bill was introduced, it was referred to the Telangana Regional Committee in accordance with the constitutional provisions. Just on that day, when the Bill was before the Regional Committee on 7th July, 1964, the judgment in W.P. Nos. 976, etc., was rendered by this Court. The Regional Committee took note of the same and suggested some amendments in the Bill to validate all that had been done in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 532 and sent it back to the Assembly. The Bill was finally passed and substantially in that form received the assent of the Governor on 26th July, 1964, and published on 27th July, 1964. The Bill as amended and enacted into law provided that the amendments effected under sections 8 and 9 of the main Act shall take effect retrospectively from 27th May, 1964. It, besides, conferred the requisite power on the Government for redelimiting any block by increasing or diminishing its area or forming a new block by separation of any area from a block or by uniting two or more blocks or parts thereof or by uniting any area to a block or part thereof and specify the name of the new block. It also gave power to constitute Panchayat Samithis for such block and provided that if, as a result of redelimitation of blocks or formation of new blocks, the entire area comprised in any block is added to one or more blocks, the said existing block shall stand abolished. It further made it clear under sub-section (5) of section 2 that the notifications may contain such supplemental or incidental provisions as the Government may deem necessary and further the Government from time to time may amend any such notification. Apart from these provisions, the material provisions with which we are concerned is that embodied in section 3 of the Amending Act which provides for the validation of the notifications issued and declaration of areas and blocks made, for redelimitation of blocks, diminution therein and addition thereto and abolition thereof and also abolition of Panchayat Samithis effected, constitution or reconstitution of Panchayat Samithis made, elections held, proceedings taken, orders passed and other actions taken under the said notifications. It was also provided that notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15th May, 1964, and all subsequent notifications amending the said notification issued or purporting to have been issued under clause (d) of section 2 of the Act shall be deemed to have been under section 3 of the Act as amended by the amending Act and the notification G.O. Ms. No. 598, dated 2nd June, 1964, issued or purporting to have been issued under section 3 and under sub-section (12) of section 14 of the Act shall be deemed to have been issued under section 3 of the Act as amended by the Amending Act and all actions done thereunder including the elections held have been validated. The result is that notwithstanding the judgment in the Writ Petitions Nos. 976 and 1067 of 1964 etc., G.O. Ms. No. 532, dated 15th May, 1964, continued to have its efficacy from the date of its inception as though the Government had such power under the Act. This piece of legislation,which affected the rights of the parties accrued by the judgment of the High Court, has been called in question by various persons in W.P. Nos. 1393, 1394, 1359 and 1360 and 1387 of 1964 wherein they prayed for writ of mandamus directing the conduct of elections according to law ignoring the provisions of the Amending Act.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 1393 of 1964 is the ex-president of Surapalli Village Panchayat and was the President of Bhattiprol Samithi upto 1st July, 1964. His contention is that of the three panchayat samithis in Repalle taluk, viz., Repalle, Pallapatla and Bhattiprol, the last one as a result of redelimitation, stood abolished and the 10 panchayats including Surapalli were added to Repalle Panchayat and the rest to Pallapatla Samithi. This blasted away all his prospects of holding the office of president of the samithis for the next term. When the elections were held thereunder for the samithi newly formed under the notification G O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15th May, 1964, respondents 3 and 4 became President and Vice-President. The case of the petitioner is that as G.O. Ms. No. 532 was quashed at his instance, the only result that must have followed in view of the decision of this Court was that fresh elections ought to be held for all the three Panchayat Samithis, viz., Bhattiprol Repalle and Pallapatla as they constituted prior to G.O. Ms. No. 532. As that has not been done the prays for a writ restraining respondents 3 and 4 from functioning as President and Vice-President and directing respondents 1 and 2 to hold elections. He attacks the Amending Act on several grounds-firstly that it was unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, secondly the validating provisions could not be validly introduced for the first time when the Bill was before the Regional Committee, and thirdly the activity involved in enacting the curative provision of the kind being essentially of judicial nature, the Legislature had exceeded its power in usurping such judicial functions. Several other grounds were raised which need not be detailed at this stage. Similar is the case with petitioner in W.P. No. 1394 of 1964 who was the Sarpanch of Cherakupalli Gram Panchayat in Bhattiprol Panchayat Samithi which samithi stood abolished as a result of redelimitation. His contentions are similar.