G.Rajesh vs Pragada Manikyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 2480 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                           &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                     WRIT APPEAL No.317 of 2021

                      (Taken up through video conferencing)

G.Rajesh S/o.Nageshwara Rao,
Aged about 27 years, Panchayat Secretary,
Donkada Gram Panchayat,
Donkada village, Nakkapalli Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.                                         .. Appellant

        Versus

Pragada Manikyam
S/o. Nooka Raju, aged about 50 years,
r/o.D.No.2-67, Donkada Gram Panchayat,
Donkada village, Nakkapalli Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District and others.                              .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. V.V.N.Narayana Rao

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Ram Babu Devarapu

Counsel for respondent No.2 to 4 : Mr. V.Kiran Kumar, G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development.

Counsel for respondent No.5             : Mr. I.Koti Reddy,
                                          Standing Counsel for Panchayats

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

                               Dt: 20.07.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/respondent No.5. Also heard Mr. Ram Babu Devarapu learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated

28.04.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.9077 of 2021.

3. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner had submitted his

nomination for contesting the post of Member of Mandal Parishad

Territorial Constituency (for short, "MPTC") of Nakkapalli on 11.03.2020

and his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer,

Nakkapalli vide order dated 12.03.2020 on the ground that the Panchayat

Secretary, Donkada Gram Panchayat i.e., the appellant herein, had given

information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "RTI Act)

that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was having house tax dues for

the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and, accordingly, he was

disqualified from contesting the said elections under Sections 156(2) and

184(2) read with Sections 18, 19, 19A, 19B, 155 and 183 of the Andhra

Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act of 1994"). The

appeal preferred against the said rejection was also dismissed.

4. The case of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, as presented in

the writ petition, was that though he had paid house tax for the relevant

years, at the behest of politically motivated persons, the

appellant/respondent No.5 had deliberately furnished false information,

which resulted in rejection of his nomination papers. Being aggrieved by

such action of the appellant/respondent No.5, a representation was made

on 18.03.2020 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition to take action

against the appellant/respondent No.5 for furnishing false information. As

no action was taken on the said representation, the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 18.03.2020.

5. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,

this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondents 2 to 4 to consider the said representation/

complaint, dated 18.03.2020, made by the petitioner,

forthwith, with immediate effect and examine the same by

conducting enquiry with reference to the evidence to be

produced by the petitioner before them in proof of

payment of the house-tax by him and they shall ascertain

whether the information furnished by the 5th respondent

under the R.T.I. Act that the petitioner is due to pay

arrears of house-tax is true or not, after giving opportunity

to the 5th respondent to submit his explanation to it.

Ultimately, if it is found that the information furnished by

the 5th respondent is false information, respondents 2 to 4

shall take appropriate steps to initiate legal action i.e.

initiating disciplinary proceedings including the criminal

prosecution, against the 5th respondent for furnishing any

such false information under the R.T.I. Act which

ultimately caused irreparable loss to the petitioner in

depriving of his valuable legal right to contest the election.

The said exercise of considering the representation/

complaint of the petitioner, dated 18.03.2020, by

respondents 2 to 4 and initiating appropriate legal action

as directed supra against the 5th respondent shall be

completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, or from the date on which a copy of this

order is produced before the respondents 2 to 4 by the

petitioner, whichever is earlier. No costs.

6. Mr. V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/respondent No.5, submits that the impugned order was passed

without giving notice to appellant/respondent No.5 and that apart, while

disposing of the writ petition, adverse findings were recorded against the

appellant/respondent No.5, which caused a grave prejudice and,

therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted

that even otherwise, the writ petition was not maintainable in the absence

of infringement of any legal right of the writ petitioner and the learned

single Judge had failed to consider that aspect of the matter. He submits

that the learned single Judge committed error of law in recording a prima

facie finding that the information furnished by the appellant that

respondent No.1/writ petitioner is due to pay arrears of house tax, is

false. He further submits that the learned single Judge also committed

manifest error of law in directing the respondents to initiate appropriate

legal action by way of instituting disciplinary proceedings, as well as under

the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In order to buttress his

contentions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the

judgments in Writ Appeal No.65 of 2021 delivered on 17.02.2021

between Container Corporation of India v. Devi Engineering &

Construction Private Limited, Ramrao and others v. All India

Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others,

reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 76, Prabodh Verma and

others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (1984)4

Supreme Court Cases 251 and G.Santhamma v. Cantonment

Board, Secunderabad, reported in 2001(4) ALD 57.

7. A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, more

particularly, para 9 goes to show that the observation made by the

learned single Judge relating to initiation of appropriate legal action, such

as, taking recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and

initiation of disciplinary proceedings, was only in the event if it was found

that the information furnished by the appellant/respondent No.5 was

false. It is not that the learned single Judge has directed straightaway to

initiate action against the appellant/respondent No.5 under the Indian

Penal Code or to draw up disciplinary proceedings. The context in which

such observation was made by the learned single Judge cannot be lost

sight of. The learned single Judge observed that if somebody cannot

contest election because of false information submitted under the RTI Act,

it is a serious matter and in that perspective, had also observed that

keeping the representation in cold storage without making any enquiry

reflects apathy, indifferent attitude and dereliction of duty, as the matter

had serious legal consequences.

8. The reliance placed in para 16 of Container Corporation of

India (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.5 is

misplaced. Para 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

"16. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment in

the case of The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal

Rungta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 12, is squarely

applicable to the present case. The learned single Judge

had not gone into the adjudication of the lis between the

parties and had relegated the writ petitioner to avail

alternative remedy. In that view of the matter, while

dismissing the writ petition, no injunction could have been

issued restraining the appellants from invoking the bank

guarantee for a period of three weeks."

9. In the instant case, the learned single Judge had not relegated

the writ petitioner to avail alternative remedy and, therefore, the aforesaid

judgment has no relevance in the facts of the present case.

10. In Ramrao and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

had observed that as by reason of the direction contained, the orders of

promotion effected in favour of the appellants had been directed to be

withdrawn, indisputably, they were necessary parties and in their

absence, writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon.

11. In Prabodh Verma and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India without the persons who would be vitally affected by

the judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them

being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number

is too large would merit dismissal.

12. It is true that no notice was issued before passing directions as

noticed supra while disposing of the writ petition. However, the present

case stands on a different footing. The contention advanced that there

was violation of principles of natural justice, has to be considered in the

light of prejudice caused. By the order under assailment, no prejudice

had been caused to the appellant/respondent No.5 as no findings are

recorded by the learned single Judge, contrary to what is sought to be

strenuously urged by Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao. The learned single Judge

took care to protect the interest of the appellant/respondent No.5, in that,

while disposing the writ petition, opportunity was directed to be given to

the appellant/respondent No.5 to submit his explanation. When such an

opportunity is granted to the appellant/respondent No.5 while considering

the representation of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner,

appellant/respondent No.5 cannot complain that because of not hearing

him at the time of disposal of the writ petition, he is prejudicially affected.

The order of the learned single Judge would show that there is a clear

observation that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and other penal

proceedings would arise only in the event it is found that the information

furnished by the appellant/respondent No.5 is false. In that view of the

matter, the contention advanced by Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao that adverse

findings had been recorded as against the appellant/respondent No.5

cannot be accepted.

13. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgments

on which Mr. V.V.N.Narayana Rao placed reliance upon, may not attract in

the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14. So far as the argument advanced by Mr. V.V.N.Narayana Rao

that writ petition is not maintainable, we are of the considered opinion

that such a plea is not tenable. According to the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner, he was prevented from contesting the election because of

deliberate false information furnished by the appellant/respondent No.5

under the RTI Act at the behest of opposition political party members and,

therefore, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had given representation to

the respondents to look into his allegations made against the

appellant/respondent No.5 while he was discharging official duties. As the

representation was gathering dust, he had approached this Court by filing

the writ petition.

15. In G.Santhamma v. Cantonment Board, Secunderabad

(supra), by way of submitting a representation, the writ petitioner in the

aforesaid case had sought for a direction to regularize his illegal

occupation and encroachment. It was in that context the Division Bench

of this Court had observed that when there was no provision for

regularization of illegal encroachment and illegal occupation under the

provisions of Cantonments Act, 1924, in the absence of any right to be

considered for regularization of illegal encroachment, writ petition seeking

writ of mandamus would not be maintainable for issuing a direction to the

respondents to consider the representation. Present is not a case of that

nature.

16. In view of the above discussion, we find no good ground to

interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, and, accordingly, the

writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                         GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No.317 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 20.07.2021

GM