A SATYANARAYANA Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Superintendent in the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Srisailam Project, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st Respondent requisitioned the services of the petitioner to appoint him as an Administrative Officer. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer has relieved the petitioner and the 1st respondent appointed him as an Administrative Officer by proceedings dated March 30, 1984. He assumed the Office on April 18, 198. The petitioner's services were requisitioned initially for a period of one year. Therefore, he is entitled to continue upto April 17, 1985. By letter dated March 23, 1985, the 1st respondent sought for extension of deputation period till April 17, 1986. Obviously, the Chief Engineer has accorded extension and the petitioner continued as an Administrative Officer pursuant to the deputation. Whole so, by the impugned order dated September 13, 1985, the petitioner was relieved as the Administrative Officer and directed him to report to the Superintending Engineer, Srisailam Project for further proceedings. Assailing the legality thereof the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare that the impugned proceedings are null and void and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the services of the respondents. The Writ Petition was admitted and interim direction was granted. Subsequently in W.A.No.51/86 the interim direction was vacated and the Writ Petition is accordingly posted for hearing.

(2.) At hearing, Mr. P.M.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the 1st respondent is a "local authority" within the meaning of Explanation (ii) to para 6 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 and therefore this Court has power only to admit the Writ Petition, but has no power to dispose of the Writ Petition finally. Under Art.371-D brought by Constitution 32nd Amendment Act, 1973, which came into effect with effect from 1.7.1974, the jurisdiction of this Court under C.4(c) thereof was taken away and was conferred on the Administrative Tribunal provided under Art.371-D of the Constitution, and in pursuance thereof the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Order was issued by the President and it was constituted. Under C1.6 thereof, the jurisdiction power and the authority of the Tribunal was conferred and under Explanation (i) to Cl.(6) all "public posts" or classes of posts under the control of the "local authority" within the State are taken out from this Court and was conferred on the Administrative Tribunal. Explanation (ii) thereof defines "local authority" which reads thus: "local authority" does not Include any local authority which is not. subject to the control of the State Government". Therefore, the "public posts" held by an employee under the control of any local authority within the State are excluded only in case where the local authority is not under the control of the State. The question therefore is, whether the 1st respondent is not a local authority and whether it is not within the control of the State. The question whether it is a "local authority" or not was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Union of India v. R.C. Jain, (1981)2 S.C.C. 308 : (1981)1 Lab L.J. 402 : (1981)2 S.C.J. 58 ; 1981 Lab. I.C. 498 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 951. There while considering the juristic personality of the Delhi Development Authority, it was held by Chinnappa Reddy, X, that it is "local authority" within the meaning of Sec.3(31) of the General Clauses Act. It is not necessary to survey the entire gamut of the consideration made by their Lordships. In the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (I of 1975) (for short "the Act") Sec.2(b) defines the" ""Authority" as an Urban Development Authority constituted under Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.3 for a development area under this Act. Under Sec.2(h) of the Act, the "Government" means the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Under Sec.2(o) of "urban area" was defined. Under Sec.3 of the Act, power is given to the Government to constitute "Urban Development Authority" with effect from such date to be specified therein. That authority consists of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, three members from among the Members of the State Legislature, two councillors of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or of the municipality, one officer, representing the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or the Municipal Administration Department of the Government, one officer of the Town Planning Department of the Government, one officer of the Finance Department of the Government and five other members to be nominated by the Government. Under Sec.27 of the Act in Chapter VII, power is given to the authority for levy of the development charges. In Chapter VIII, the relations between the Government and the authority and the local authorities have been specified. Under Sec.3*(l) of the Act, the Urban Development Authority was given power to carry out such directions as may be issued to it, from time to time, by the Government for the efficient administration of the Act. Under Sec.35, the Urban Development Authority shall furnish to the Government such reports, returns, records and other information as the Government may, from time to time, require. Then under Sec.36(1), notwithstanding anything in any other law or regulation in force, where the Government consider expedient for the effective functioning of the Authority, they may by notification, suspend any of the powers of local authority relating to the control on development and use of lands and buildings under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, the Andhra Pradesh Panch- ayat Samities and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 and transfer such powers to the Authority. Under Sec.37, the Government has power to replace the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority who wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act or any rules, bye-laws, regulations or lawful orders issued thereunder or abuses his position, or the powers vested in him, or any member is found guilty of any misconduct in exercising or purporting to exercise the right conferred or performing or purporting to perform the functions imposed by or under the Act, the Government may be notification and with effect from a date to be specified therein, replace such Chairmen, Vice-Chairman or any other member etc. Under Sec.38 of the Act, the Government also have power, if there is a delay in the reconstitution of the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to appoint a Special Officer to manage the affairs of the Authority for a period not exceeding six months and the Government may appoint the Vice-Chairman under this Section as the Special Officer. Under Sec.60 of the Act, the Government have got the power on satisfying that the purposes for which the authority is constituted under the Act, has been substantially achieved so as to render the continued existence of the Authority in the opinion of the Government unnecessary, by notification declare that the said Authority shall be dissolved with effect on and from such date as may be specified in the notification. Thus, the Government has got absolute power in the constitution, dissolution, and management and the Authority has to discharge its functions subject to such control vested in the Government under the Act or any lawful directions issued thereunder. A reading of these provisions would in unmistakable terms establish that the 1st respondent is under the control of the State Government. Therefore, it is a "local authority" within the meaning of Explanation (ii) to Clause 6 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975. Therefore, it is a "local authority". Once it is a "local authority" it is now well settled by catina of decisions of this Court, that this Court has got power only to entertain Writ Petitions when the Constitutional validity of Art.371-D is assailed and in such an event its power is only .to pass interim orders pending consideration of the Writ Petitions. The constitutional validity of Art.371-D of the Constitution has not been assailed, therefore, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and it: is accordingly, dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to move the Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his injury according to law.

(3.) The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances without Costs.