VENU Vs. KANNAIAH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of Cuppuswami, J , allowing the writ petition filed by the President of the Satyavedu Panchayat Samithi, Chittoor district, questioning the order of the District Collector, Chittoor, in his proceedings dated 23-3-1974 which was subsequently approved by the Government by its order dated 31-5-1974. Repondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, teachers in the employment of the Panchayat Samithi. are the appellants in the writ appeal. The President of the Panchayat Samithi transferred several teachers working In the Panchayat Samithi by an order dated 5-11-1973. The order was set aside by the Collector. That led to the President of the Panchayat Samithi moving the Government for emulation of the order of the Collector by a letter dated 10 4-1974 Before he received any reply from the Government, he filed the writ petition on 10-6-1974 seeking a writ of mandmaus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the impugned order of the District Collector as illegal and void. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Government informed the President of the Panchayat Samithi that his order transferring certain teachers was in contravention of the instructions issued by the Government and as such, the interference of the Collector was Justified. That led to the amendment of the writ petitionfor the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing the order of the Government dated 31-5-1974. The learned Judge held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the order of the President of Panchayat Samithi and that the approval of the Government of such an order will not make an otherwise invalid order, a valid one. He also held that, even assuming that the Government exercised its revisionsl power under Section 77. of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act. 1959, such power could be exercised only after notice to the party prejudicially affected by the order and as on such notice was given to the President of the Panchayat Sanithi, the order of the Government is bad for that reason also. Mr. Challa Sitaramayya, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the decision of the learned single Judge runs contrary to the view expressed by two Division Benches of this Court, one in Panchayat Samithi. Kodakandla V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and the other in W.A.No. 670 of 1974 dated 25-9-1974. In the latter case, to which one of us (Obul Rsddi, C.J.) was a party, following is the view expressed in the former case (1), held:

(2.) Mr. E Manohar appearing for the 1st respondent (President of the Panchayat Samithi), relying upon the findings of the learned single Judge, contended that, in the two cases referred to above, the validity of G.O.Ms No 141, Panchayat Raj (Est. V) Department, dated 21st March. 1968, was not considered and, therefore, those decisions have no bearing on the Questions raised and answered by the learned Judge. Therefore the two questions that fall for determination are (1) whether the Collector had jurisdiction to set aside the order of transfer passed by the President of the Panchayat Samithi; and (2) whether the delegation of powers by the Government to the Collector under G.O. Ms. No 141, dated 21-3-1968 is in accordance with the provisions of Sections 71 and 72 of the Act. Section 71 deals with delegation of powers and to transfer institutions and works. Sub-section (1) of Section 71 reads:

(3.) We are unable to agree with the above view expressed by the learned Judge. The Government, by virtue of the language of Section 71. imposed certain restictions upon the Collectors in exercise of the powers conferred upon them so that it could exercise its power of revision or review. The transfer of teachers is not a quasi-judicial act; but it is only an administrative act Under Sec. 66, every Panchayat Samithi shall furnish a copy of the report on its administration for each year to the Government. The Govenment is under an obligation to consider the copy of the report sent to it. Apart from the powers of revision and review under Sec. 72, the Government have other powers over the Panchayat Samithis under the Act Under Section 62 the Government has power to cancel or suspend the resolution of a Panchayat Samithi or a Zilla Parishad. Under Section 62-A, if a Panchayat Samithi has made default in performing any function or discharging any duty imposed by or under the Act or any relevant law for the time being in force, the Government can compel the panchayat to perform its functions. The powers conferred by the Government under G. O. Ms. No. 141 are of administrative nature. Therefore, the Collector is entitled to see whether the transfer of teachers made by the President of the Panchayat Samithi is in accordance with the directions issued by the Government from time to time. The Government can therefore, empower the Collector to exercise control subject to its revisional powers. What has been delegated to the Collector is not a Judicial or quasi-judicial function. The delegation of functions contemplated under Section 71 may be administrative or quasi-judicial. When administrative functions are delegated, it will be open to the Government to retain its power of revision and review. In Bombay Municipal Corporation Vs. Dhondu dealing with the scope of Sections 68 (l) and 105-B (I) (a) (ii) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (3 ot 1888) as amended by Maharashtra Act, 14 of 1961, Hidayatullah, J., (as he then was) observed. 'The words of S. 68 must be reasonably construed. It goes without saying that judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated unless the law expressly or by clear implication permits it. But the amendment of S. 68 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961 by inclusion of delegation of the functions of the Commissioner under Sec. 105-B to 105-E does indicate the intention that the judicial or quasi-judicial powers contained in Chapter VIA were expressly intended to be delegated. The provisions in S, 68 that the exercise of the function by the delegate is to be under the "Commissioner's control" and subject to his revision "is really appropriate to a delegation of administrative functions where the control may be deeper than in judicial matters. In respect of judicial or quasi-judicial functions these words cannot of course bear the meaning which they bear in the delegation of administrative functions," We, therefore, hold that the powers delegated to the Collectors, from the language employed in the G. O., are in relation to administrative functions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government cannot exercise its revisional powers under Section 72. There is no reason for us to depart from the view already xpressed by this Court in the two earlier cases referred to above. It was clearly expressed by this Court that the Panchayat Samithi is not an aggrieved party, as the cancellation of the order of transfer of teachers does not cause any prejudice to it. Another contention of the learned Counsel. Mr. E. Manohar, appearing for the 1st respondent is that the G O. Ms No. 141 was kept in abeyance by another Memorandum. The question is whether the Government, by a Memorandum, canset naught a G. O. issued by it. The view consistently taken by this Court has been that G. O. s cannot be modified by Memorandums. That apart, the Government, under Section 72, has suo motu powess of revision Even assuming that the Collector had no power to cancel the order of transfer of the teachers, the Government was entitled to act on the representation made by the President himself in his letter dated 10-4-1974. On the strength of the letter of the President of the Samithi, the Government could call for the records and examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the President of the Panchayat Samithi In that view also, the order of the Government can be sustained. Therefore, for the reasons recorded, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeal. No. costs.