Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Melam Sivaji, on 15 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[
3463
]
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
APHC010026542024 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 145 OF 2024
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
MELAM SIVAJI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. GP FOR SERVICES IV
Counsel for the Respondents: K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
The Court made the following JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard the Ld G P (Ser. IV) for the Appellants.
2) The Appellants are the State, the Commissioner of
Panchayat Raj and the District Collector and before this
Court in this Intra-Court Appeal being aggrieved by the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing
the Writ Petition. The direction issued in paragraph No. 11,
reads as under:-
"11. In view of the foregoing discussion and material
placed before this Hon'ble Court, it is appropriate for this
Court as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondents 4 and 5 can be directed with the prior
approval of the 1st respondent to formulate the scheme for
appointment of member of bereaved family of 4th
respondent under compassionate ground and when the 4 th
respondent formulates the scheme for such appointment to
consider the case of the petitioner for such appointment."
3) A plain reading of the direction would show that, firstly
there is no order directing its implementation in a time-bound
manner; secondly, it is seen that the Respondent Nos. 4 and
5 are required to formulate a scheme with the "prior approval"
of the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the 1st Appellant herein.
4) Admittedly, a scheme has been framed without the prior
approval of the Respondent No. 1/1st Appellant. It is
submitted that, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have merely
formulated a scheme and forwarded it without seeking prior
approval.
5) In that view of the matter, whether the same is binding
on the Appellant itself is questionable?
6) Be that as it may, it is settled law that the Courts
cannot direct formulation of policy, which is entirely and
exclusively within the domain of the State. On that count
also, the impugned order stands vitiated.
7) A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs. Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr1
have clearly held as under:
"It is well-settled that the High Court cannot issue
direction to the State to form a new policy. The matter
ought to be analysed on its own merits in accordance
with law".
8) In that view of the matter, the direction in paragraph
No. 11 in so-far-as directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to
formulate a policy stands vitiated being contrary to the settled
law.
9) In that view of the matter, the direction to the said
extent warrants interference and is accordingly set-aside.
Setting aside of the direction would not come in the way of
the Appellants for considering the case of the Petitioner,
strictly in accordance with the prevailing law.
10) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed in the
above terms. No order as to costs.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68
11) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_________________
G.NARENDAR, J
_____________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Sm./..
