Telangana High Court

G. Rajender Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 August, 2024

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

         WRIT APPEAL Nos.140 AND 141 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)

These two intra court appeals are filed against the

common order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.Nos.14695 of 2015 and 20454 of 2016.

2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant, and Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special

Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General

Office appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Since the issue involved in the two writ appeals is one and

the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by

this common judgment. For the facility of reference, W.A.No.141

of 2017 is being referred.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The case of the appellant is that the Government of the

composite State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and

Gramdan Act, 1965 ('Act' for brevity) had issued G.O.Ms.No.687

dated 14.12.2012, reconstituting the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan

Yagna Board ('Board' for brevity) and appointing the appellant in

W.A.No.141 of 2017 as Chairman and appellant in W.A.No.140

of 2017 as Member of the Board along with other persons as

members for a period of four years. After bifurcation of the

composite State and formation of State of Telangana, respondent

No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 05.07.2014, adopting the

Act and appointing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

as Special Officer to discharge the functions of the Board under

Section 9(4) of the Act.

4.1. Questioning the said appointment, the appellant and

other member have filed two writ petitions viz., W.P.No.18833 of

2014 and W.P.No.34573 of 2014 before erstwhile composite

High Court, wherein learned Single Judge was pleased to grant

interim order on 22.01.2015 suspending G.O.Ms.No.11, dated

05.07.2014, and issued consequential direction directing the

respondents therein to restore files etc., to the Board. Aggrieved

by the said order, respondents therein have filed intra Court

appeal vide W.A.(S.R.) No.30488 of 2015 and W.A. (S.R.)

No.46879 of 2015 and the Division Bench of the composite High

Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the said writ appeals on

29.04.2015 by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.11 in relation to

appointment of the Special Officer.

4.2. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had issued a show-cause

notice dated 05.05.2015, directing the appellant and other

members to submit explanation as to why the Board which was

constituted under G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 14.12.2012 should not

be dissolved. Pursuant to the same, the appellant submitted

explanation on 07.05.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed

order without properly considering the explanation, vide

G.O.Ms.Nos.59 and 60, Revenue (Assignment-I), dated

13.05.2015, dissolving the Board and appointing Principal

Secretary, Revenue as authority to exercise the powers and

discharge the duties of the Board under Section 9 (4) of the Act.

Questioning the above said G.Os., the appellant and other

Members, namely K.V.Subba Rao and V.Subramanyam, have

filed W.P.Nos.14695 of 2015, 17179 of 2015 and 20454 of 2016

respectively and learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petitions by its common order dated 06.01.2017, without

properly considering the contentions of the petitioners.

Aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred these writ appeals.

Contentions of learned counsel for Appellants:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants

contended that respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice on

05.05.2015, without mentioning any grounds for dissolution of

the Board, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and

passed order vide G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 13.05.2015 dissolving

the Board even without considering the explanation and issued

G.O.Ms.No.60, dated 13.05.2015, appointing Principal Secretary

to Government, for discharging the duties of the Board. He

further contended that dissolution of the Board is not in

consonance of the show-cause notice and also is in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice.

5.1. Learned counsel further contended that after bifurcation

of composite State and formation of State of Telangana,

Government of Telangana had issued G.O.Ms.No.11, dated

05.07.2014, appointing the Special Officer, when the Board is

existing and the said G.O. was struck down by the Division

Bench of erstwhile combined High Court in

W.A.(S.R.).Nos.30488 of 2015 and 46879 of 2015 on 29.04.2015

and the said order has become final. Hence, the dissolution of

the Board is not in conformity with the provision of Section 9 of

Act and further contended that exercise of powers conferred

under Section 9(4) of the Act are contingent on the

circumstances enumerated under Sections 9(1), (2) and (3) of the

Act and the dissolution of the Board through G.O.Ms.No.59 is

colourable exercise of the powers. He further contended that

respondent No.1, while dissolving the Board, has not given

opportunity to explain the reasons on the letter written by

Dr.Veena Behan and the same is gross violation of the principles

of natural justice.

5.2. He further contended that respondent No.1 in the show

cause notice or in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.59 has not

mentioned reasons for dissolution of the Board. However, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition basing on the

allegations made in the counter affidavit, instead of

circumstances, and the same is contrary to law.

5.3. Learned counsel relying upon the judgment of Manoj

Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors 1 contended that in the life of

litigation, the passage of time can stand both as an ally and an

adversary, the duty of the Court is to transcend the constraints

of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to

control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action

and by taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of

public law proceedings will be subserved.

5.4. He further relying on Mohinder Singh Gill & Another

Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors 2

contended that the respondents are trying to improve their case

by way of counter and further contended that the decision taken

by the authority must be informed and impregnated with

(2024) 3 SCC 563

(1978) 1 SCC 405

reasons by relying on the judgment of State of Punjab

Vs.Bandeep Singh 3.

5.5. He further relying on the judgment of A.P.State

Minorities Commission Vs.Union of India and Ors 4

contended that the administrative orders made by the

Government of erstwhile State continue to be in force and

effective and binding on the successor states until and unless

they are modified or changed or repudiated by the Government

of Successor states.

5.6. He relying upon on the judgment of Gullapalli

Nageshwara Rao Vs. APSRTC 5 which in turn relied on Mineral

Development ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 6 contended that a person

interested in one party or the other should not, even formally,

take part in the proceedings though in fact he does not influence

the mind of the person, who finally decides the case.

5.7. Learned counsel further relying on the judgments of

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan

Beverages (P) Ltd. And others 7 and UMC Technologies

Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and other 8

(2016) 1 SCC 724

2015 (1) ALD 1

1958 SCC Online SC 49

1959 SCC Online SC 49

(2007) 5 SCC 388

2020 SCC OnLine SC 934

contended that allegations made in the show cause notice are

not specific and the notice of the case must be served on the

affected parties so that they can defend themselves and such

notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action

and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned

specifically and unambigously.

Contentions of learned Special Government Pleader:

6. Per contra, Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special

Government Pleader submits that respondent No.1 after

following the due procedure as contemplated under the

provisions of the Act and after considering the explanation

submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice passed

order vide G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 13.05.2015 by giving reasons.

He further contended that the appellants are not having any

statutory right or legal right to question the dissolution of Board.

He further contended that the appellant and other members

during their tenure, as Chairman and Members of the Board,

have committed several irregularities by alienating and allotting

the valuable lands to ineligible persons and against them several

criminal cases were filed which are still pending. He also

contended that the appellant and the Members of the Board

were appointed basing on the letter dated 25.07.2012 issued by

one Dr.Veena Behan, President of Mahila Chetana Kendra,

Delhi, but the said letter was found to be forged and fabricated.

Learned Single Judge after considering the contentions of the

respective parties and due verification of the records, dismissed

the writ petitions by giving cogent reasons and the appeals filed

by the appellants are liable to be dismissed.

Analysis of the case:

7. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant and other

Members were appointed as Chairman and Members of the

Board by the State of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms.No.687

dated 14.12.2012 for a period of four years. After bifurcation of

the composite State and formation of State of Telangana,

respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 05.07.2014,

appointing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, as

Special Officer for management of affairs of the Board.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant and another member have

filed W.P.Nos.18833 of 2014 and 34573 of 2014, wherein the

erstwhile composite High Court granted interim order on

22.01.2015. Aggrieved by the same, respondents herein have

filed W.A(S.R).Nos.30488 and 46879 of 2015 and the Division

Bench of erstwhile High Court disposed of the said writ appeals

as well as writ petitions on 29.04.2015 with the consent of the

parties by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.11, only in relation to the

appointment of the Special Officer. It is relevant to extract the

operative portion of the order, which reads as follows:

"The appointment of a Special Officer can be made as an inter dissolution aduring the Interregnum Between the dissolution and reconstitution ofnum Board. However, the existing Board has not been dissolved at all. The appointment of the Special Officer, after adaptation of the Act of 1965 without any alteration and amendment thereto, is therefore contrary to law.

We therefore, set aside the G.O. only in relation to the appointment of the Special Officer.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Telangana submits that the State is planning to dissolve the existing Board and reconstitute the same.

It is for the Government to take a decision on this issue. We cannot say anything in this regard. All that we can say is that the existing Board will continue because of the adaptation until and unless it is dissolved in accordance with law. After dissolution of the Board, obviously appointment of a Special Officer is permissible.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that there is a large extent of Bhoodan land which is very valuable and mostly situated in the State of Telangana, and when the State has reported its intention not to allow the existing Board to function, we think that till a decision is taken for dissolution of the Board, the existing Board will continue but the said board shall not take any policy decision or deal with the land and shall limit itself to routine administrative decisions. If no decision is taken by State of Telangana as informed above within fortnight from date, the existing Board until lawful dissolution will function normally in accordance with law."

8. Subsequent to disposal of the above said cases,

respondent No.1 had issued the show cause notice on

05.05.2015 directing the appellant and others to submit

explanation as to why the action should not be taken to dissolve

the Board exercising the powers conferred under the provisions

of the Act wherein specific grounds are mentioned which reads

as follows:

"2. Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave died long back and the power of nomination was entrusted to Sarva Seva Sangh as nominee of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave for constitution of Bhoodan Yagna Board to the respective States. In fact, there is no consultation with Sarva Seva Sangh by the then Government of A.P. for constitution of the present Board presided by Chairman Sri G.Rajender Reddy, Vice- Chairman and other Members.

3. The Board records reveal that Sri G.Rajender Reddy, had produced a letter dated 25.07.2012, wherein the present Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members are nominated by one Dr.Veena Behan, President of Mahila Chetna Kendra (Regd), Delhi. On the basis of the said letter, the present Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members are appointed to the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board.

4. It is stated that Mahila Chetna Kendra is not a Sarva Seva Sangh. Subsequently, Dr.Veena Behan informed the State Government by letter dated 21.03.2014 that she has not acted/assigned/represented herself as nominee of late Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave in her lifetime for any kind of function to act whatsoever for nominating the present Board Chairman Sri G.Rajender Reddy, Vice- Chairman and other Members.

5. Therefore, there is no basis for constitution of the existing Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sri G.Rajender Reddy, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members have produced a fabricated letter and got appointment orders.

6. After constitution of the existing Board and in exercise of powers of the Chairman and Board, you have

alienated the huge valuable lands to the ineligible persons and institutions, contrary to the provisions of the Act, which causes great loss to the Board by defeating the object of the Board and the matter is under Investigation.

7. It is further stated that pursuant to the provisions of A.P. State Reorganization Act, 2014, the State of Telangana has adapted the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, 1965, w.e.f. 2.6.2014 for the State of Telangana. Therefore, in view of the adaption of the Act to the State of Telangana, the pre-existing A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board is required to be dissolved so as to take necessary action for constitution of the Board under the provisions of Adapted Act to the extent of State of of Telangana.

8. Pursuant to the Adaptation Act, the State Government has appointed the Person-in-charge as an Authority to look after the affairs of the Board vide reference 4th cited. It is further stated that the said G.O. was questioned by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members before the Hon'ble High Court. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 29.04.2015 held that the present Board has to be dissolved in terms of the Act and the Government of Telangana may take necessary action for constituting the Board.

9. In obedience to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and in exercise of powers conferred, the Government of Telangana issue the present notice to you for dissolution of the then existing Board to that extent of Telangana territory.

10. For the reasons mentioned above, you are therefore hereby directed to submit your explanation, if any, as to why action should not be taken to dissolve the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board for the state of Telangana which was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.687, Revenue (Assn-

I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 14.12.2012, within five (5) days from the date of issue of this notice, failing which it will be construed that you have no explanation to offer and further action will be taken based on the material available on record."

9. Pursuant to the same, the appellant and other members

have submitted their explanation on 07.05.2015 and

11.05.2015. Respondent No.1 after considering the explanation

passed order exercising the powers conferred under the Act vide

G.O.Ms.Nos.59 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated

13.05.2015, dissolving the Board.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants

that respondent No.1 without giving opportunity to the

appellants passed order on 13.05.2015, is not tenable under

law, on the ground that respondent No.1 had issued the show

cause notice on 05.05.2015 and after considering the

explanation submitted by the appellants dated 7.05.2015

passed order by giving reasons specifically stating that the

Board was constituted basing on the false and forged letter

dated 25.07.2014 written by Dr.Veena Behan, President of

Mahila Chetana Kendra, Delhi, to the State Government and

during the course of enquiry also it was proved to be fabricated

one and Dr.Veena Behan stated that she has not acted/assigned

or represented herself as nominee of late Acharya Vinobha

Bhave for any kind of functions or whatsoever and the said

document was fabricated and also held that during the tenure of

the appellant and others as Chairman and members of the

Board have committed several irregularities and alienated

valuable lands and also allotted lands of the Institution to the

ineligible persons and caused loss.

11. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, respondent

No.1 is having authority and power to dissolve the Board. It is

also relevant to extract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act,

which reads as follows:

"9 (1) Where the Government are satisfied that:

a) The board has failed without reasonable cause or excuse to discharge the duties, or to perform the functions, imposed on, or assigned to, it by or under this Act or has exceeded or abused powers: or

(b) Circumstances have arisen in which the Board is, or may, be, unable to discharge the duties, or to perform the functions, imposed on, or assigned to, it by or under this Act; or

(c) It is otherwise expedient so to do They may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette direct that the Board be dissolved with effect from a specified date and reconstitute under section 3 either immediately or within six months from the date of dissolution.

(2) Before directing the dissolution of the Board under sub-

section (1), the Government shall communicate to the Board the grounds on which they propose to do so, fix a reasonable period for the Board to show-cause against the proposal and consider its explanation and objections, if any.

(3) On the date fixed for the dissolution of the Board under sub-section (1), all its members including the Chairman and Vice-

Chairman shall be deemed to have vacated their offices.

(4) During the interval, if any, between the dissolution and the reconstitution of the Board the Government may, by order appoint any officer or authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Board, subject to such restrictions and limitations as may be specified in the order.

(5) Where the Board is dissolved under this section, the Government, until the date of the reconstitution thereof, and the reconstituted Board thereafter, shall be entitled to all the assets and be subject to all the liabilities of the Board."

12. The above said provision clearly reveals that respondent

No.1 is having authority and power to dissolve the Board. It is

already observed supra that there are specific allegations against

the appellant and Members of the Board that during their tenure

they have committed grave irregularities and illegalities by

alienating and allotting valuable lands of the Institution/Board

to the ineligible persons and caused great financial loss, though

they have to safeguard the rights of the Institution/Board. The

allegations leveled against the appellant and other members are

extracted by the learned Single Judge in para 27 of the

impugned common order, which reads as follows:

"a) Allotment of land to an extent of Ac.100.00 gts., in Sy.No.58/p situated in Ibrahimpatnam Village (Saidabad Kancha) and Ac.44.26 gts., in Sy.Nos. 2/4, 2/36, 2/88 and 58/p of Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in violation of the Act.

b) The Chairman sold out land admeasuring Ac.50.00 gts., in Sy.No.58/p situated at Ibrahimpatnam Village (Saidabad Kancha) of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict to Sri Maheswaram Ambadad and four others vide registered document

No.3961/2008, dated 12.06.2008.

c) Leasing out of land an extent of Ac.35.00 gts., in Sy.No.58/69 to M/s. S.V.S.Raithu Dairy, a registered partnership firm bearing No.113/09, dated 24.09.2008.

d) The Chairman also leased out land admeasuring Ac.15.00 gts., in Sy.No.58/p situated in Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to M/s. Gopal Goshala Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee for a period of 28 years vide document No.225/2010, dated 19.01.2010.18

e) Illegal sale of house plots in Sy.NO.319 in Batasingaram Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also allotted land to an extent of Ac.16.32 gts., towards house sites without obtaining any enquiry report or eligibility list from Local Tahsildar.

f) Allotment of land to an extent of Ac.32.24 gts., in Sy.Nos.1 to 7 of Palamakula Village, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 12.12.2013 to seven persons without verifying landless poor status/eligibility status of the applicants in violation of the Act.

g) A criminal case under Section 420 IPC and 468 IPC was registered against the Chairman and members of the Board alleging about the various irregularities by indulging in gross misconduct, mismanagement and misappropriation of valuable properties of the Board. The said case is under investigation by C.I.D. Telangana."

13. The appellant in both the appeals have not disputed the

above facts including pending criminal cases against them.

14. It is also trite that the writ Court may refuse to exercise its

discretionary jurisdiction, if it is of the opinion that issuing of a

direction would render the order an illegal one.

15. We are of the view that respondent No.1 passed the

impugned G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 13.05.2015, after following the

due procedure exercising the powers conferred under the Act by

giving valid reasons. Learned Single Judge, while considering

the provisions of the Act and also law, dismissed the writ

petitions by giving cogent reasons and the same do not suffer

any infirmity or warranting interference and the appellant in