K VITHAL RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this writ appeal preferred against the judgment of our learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J., dismissing the writ petition, is what is the definite and precise meaning of the words "in any local area" occurring in section 231 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as "the Act."

(2.) The essential facts that give rise to the question lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, who was elected as Sarpanch of Jukkal village was removed from the office by the proceeding dated 28th October, 1972 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj Department. This order of removal was also preceded by a show-cause notice issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj Department. The principal contention in the writ petition was that the Deputy Secretary was not competent to pass the order of removal of Sarpanch as he was not a Commissioner of Panchayat Raj as defined in the Act and that even under section 23 (2) of the Act as the Commissioner can by notification authorise any officer or person to exercise such power only "in any local area" in a State, the delegation of powers under section 23(2) of the Act by the Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary authorising the latter to exercise the functions of the Commissioner under section 50 of the Act throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh is invalid. The sum and substance of this argument is that the delegation by the Commissioner could only be with reference to a local area in the State and not with reference to the whole of the State. Out learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J., rejected this contention holding that the Commissioner could delegate his powers to the Deputy Secretary in respect of the whole of the State. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that as regards the second charge the explanation submitted by the Sarpp.nch ought to have been accepted. This contention also was rejected by the learned single Judge.

(3.) Sri P. A. Chowdary, the learned Counsel for the appellant advanced the same arguments before us. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the meaning of the words "local area" occurring in Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India was considered and their Lordships observed thus:-