G SIMHAGIRI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batch of writ petitions the orders of the Tribunal under challenge are those where O.As. filed by the respondent- applicants were allowed at the admission stage without notice to the Government or to the other respondents in the O.As. Aggrieved by these orders the State Government and other employees, who have sought leave to file writ petitions against the order of the Tribunal, have approached this Court.

(2.) While several contentions have been raised in these writ petitions, the main ground of challenge is to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow the O.A. at the stage of admission. Since examination, of the other contentions raised, would depend on a decision on this question, we considered it appropriate to decide this question first. Elaborate arguments were advanced in this regard by Sri K. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondent-applicants. Sri P. Balakrishnamurthy, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Sri Abinand Kumar Shavli and the learned Government Pleader for Services I, were heard on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) Sri K. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- applicants, would submit that the question, as to whether the Tribunal could have allowed the O.A. at the stage of admission without notice to the parties, is a question of law and, since such questions of law are also required to be pleaded, and facts based on which they arise proved, in the absence of any such plea in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, this Court would not take upon itself the task of examining this contention. Learned Counsel places reliance on Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana and M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. State of Gujarat, in this regard. Learned Counsel would refer to the plea taken by the Government in W.P.No. 13350 of 2005 that the petitioners were not heard. Learned Counsel would submit that the Tribunal, in its order, had specifically noted that the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Government Pleader were heard. Learned Counsel would submit that statements of facts as to what transpired during the hearing, as recorded in the judgment of the Tribunal, are conclusive of the facts so stated and that no one could contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. Learned Counsel would place reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Metha Opticians and Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M/s. Bureau Veritas, in this regard.