NARAYANAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT NARASANNAPEIA TALUK SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A facet of the rules of natural justice arises for consideration in this writ petition. Petitioner is the Grain Panchayat, Narayanavalasa. Every Thursday a shandy is held in the village, where the market.-fee is collected from the vendors of various articles offered for sale at the said market. The right to collect the said market-fee is farmed out every year by the Panchayat Samithi and, out of the said proceeds, the panchayat samithi is entitled to 35% while the remaining 65% is made over to the concerned Gram Panchayat. We are now concerned with the year 1976-77 (i.e.,) commencing from 1-4-1976 and ending with 31-3-1976). For the previous four years, the said right was be ing farmed out to the Gram Panchyat at a figure determined by the Panchayat Samithi and the Collector, without putting the same to public Auction. For the year 1976 77 also the Gram pancha >at wanted the said right to be farmed out to it without putting it to public auction. A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat to the said effect, which was communicated to the Panchayat Samithi. The Special Officer, incharge of the Panchayat Samithi, recom mended the Gram Panchayat's case to the Collector. However by his order dated 18-3-1976, the Collector directed that the said right be put to public auction. It may be mentioned that the amount which the Gram Panchayal was paying towards the said right, was Rs. 41,418/-. Against the said order of the Collector, petitioner approached the G6vernment by way of revision, which was entertained by the Government and by an order contained in its Memorandum dt. 27-3-1976, the Government directed: "pending disposal of the revision petition cited, the orders of the Collector Srikakulam in his L.Dis. No. 2031/76, dated 18-3-1976 are hereby suspended and that the Panchayat Samithi, Kotabommali is hereby directed to continue the Narayanavalasa Gram Panchayat as the lessee of the weekly market Narayanavalasa for the year 1976-77 on the same terms and conditions as in previous years...". then appears that on a representation made by a member of the Legislative Assembly the Government vacated the said order, under the impugned Memoran dum dt. 17-4-1976. The said latter order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K. Raghava Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the Government dated 27-3-1976 conferred and created a right in the petitioner Gram Panchayat, in as much as it directed the Collector to continue the Gram Panchayat as the lessee for the year 1976-77 on the same terms and conditions as were obtaining for the previous years and that, this right was taken away and undone by the Government on the representation of a third parly, without disclosing the substance of the said representation to the petitioner. In other words, it is "complained that the petitioner does not know as to what was stated in the said representation made by the Member of the Legislative Assembly, and that the petitioner had no opportunity of controverting or rebutting the allegations or averments made in the said representation. This is said to be violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, that the Gram Pan chayat has no right as such to obtain the said right 'otherwise than by a public auction and that, the order of the Collector dated 18-3-1976 is only administrative in nature. It is contended that, if the order of the Collector is administrative in nature, the function of the Government, even in revision continues to be administrative in nature and that, the Government does not act as a quasijudicial authority even while exercising its revisional powers, because no'lis is involved before it. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any personal hearing, or to any further opportunity before dismissing the revision itself. If so, he cannot claim to have a higher right when an interlocutory order is vacated. Tt is pointed out that, the order dated 27-3-1976 was merely an interim order, though it is not expressly stated so and that, it was always open to the Government, to vacate the said order as and when it found that the continuance of the said order is not warranted or justified.