Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manda Sasikanth vs G Venkata Rao on 12 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
I.A.No.2 OF 2022
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No. 977 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
The 1st petitioner/appellant claims to be the resident of
Hukumpeta, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari
District and the 2nd petitioner/appellant is the resident of
Penakanametta, Kovvuru Mandal, East Godavari District. They
are the agriculturists and they are seeking to grant leave to file
this writ appeal against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.33015 of 2022 under the provisions of
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, on the ground that in the said
writ petition, they are not made as parties and the writ petitioner
is involved in several irregularities and disciplinary proceedings
are already initiated against him and also enquiries are pending.
By the Memo dated 07.09.2022, the 3rd respondent -
Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Tadepalli
has requested the 4th respondent - District Collector to post the
writ petitioner i.e., Sri G.Venkata Rao, Panchayat Secretary
Grade-I, Hukkumpeta, who was posted there during recent
transfers, to a remote non-focal Gram Panchayat in East Godavari
2
District. Accordingly, by way of proceedings dated 19.09.2022,
the 4th respondent was transferred to Rangampeta Gram
panchayat of Rangampeta Mandal. Accordingly, the 5 th
respondent issued proceedings dated 06.10.2022 by reliving the
writ petitioner and one Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, Panchayat Secretary,
Bommuru Gram panchayat has been kept in-charge until further
orders. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed
W.P.No.33015 of 2022 and the learned Single Judge granted
interim suspension as prayed for in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and thereby
he is retained at the original transfer place of Hukumpeta Gram
panchayat.
2. Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri
Manoj Kumar Bethampudi, learned counsel on record appearing
for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, states that the 1st
respondent has not committed any irregularities while working in
Hukumpeta Gram panchayat and only disciplinary proceedings
are initiated against him for the alleged charges that he committed
certain irregularities while he was working as Panchayat
Secretary, Pidimgoyyi Gram Panchayat for the period from
2010-11 to 2013-14. He further states that if the 1st respondent
is continued in Hukumpeta Gram panchayat, he would not
tamper any records and only he got posted to Hukumpeta on
3
medical grounds and thereby transferring him to Rangampeta
Gram panchayat is illegal and hence he filed the writ petition.
4. Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, further states
that writ appeal is not maintainable under Letters Patent and the
petitioners having filed the implead petition in the writ petition,
filing the writ appeal pending implead petition is unwarranted and
the petitioners have to contest the matter before the learned Single
Judge by impleading themselves. He further submits that against
the interlocutory order, pending further orders, writ appeal under
the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not
maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs.
Chunilal Nanda and others1.
5. In Subal Paul Vs. Malina Paul 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held at Paras 32 and 35 thus:
"32. While determining the question as regards clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, the court is required to see as to whether the order
sought to be appealed against is a judgment within the meaning
thereof or not. Once it is held that irrespective of the nature of the
order, meaning thereby whether interlocutory or final, a judgment
1
(2006) 5 SCC 399
2
(2003) 10 SCC 361
4
has been rendered, clause 15of the Letters Patent would be
attracted.
...
35. ...Clause 15 of the Letters Patent confers a right of
appeal on a litigant against any judgment passed under any Act
unless the same is expressly excluded. Clause 15 may be subject
to an Act but when it is not so subject to the special provision the
power and jurisdiction of the High Court under clause 15 to
entertain any appeal from a judgment would be effective."
6. The term 'judgment' occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in
Section 2(9) of CPC and orders enumerated in Order XLIII Rule 1
of CPC, but also others orders which, though may not finally and
conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or
any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some
collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights
and obligations of the parties. Interim orders/interlocutory orders
passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other
of the following categories:
(i) orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the
main case;
(ii) orders which finally decide an issue which materially an directly
affects the final decision in the main case;
(iii) orders which finally decide a collateral or question which is not the
subject-matter of the main case;
(iv) routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case
till its culmination in the final judgment; and
(v) orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a
party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of
the parties.
However, the interlocutory orders which fall under categories
(i) to (iii) above, are therefore, judgments for the purpose of filing
appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, the orders
falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not judgments for the
purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.
7. A careful reading of the order under Appeal would show that
the interim suspension is only for a limited period and it has not
reached finality by making it absolute. The impugned order is
also revocable in the event the Court negatives the contention of
the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, after perusing the evidence.
Therefore, the impugned order cannot be considered to be one of
affecting vital and valuable rights of the appellants finally. Hence,
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not
amount to a judgment and thus the appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, in
the absence of any violation of statutory provisions, we are not
inclined to entertain the leave to proceed with the writ appeal.
8. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is dismissed. Consequently,
the Writ Appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs.
As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending shall
also stand dismissed.
________________________
JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
_____________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
12th December, 2022
anr
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
I.A.No.2 OF 2022
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No. 977 OF 2022
12th December, 2022
anr
