HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1391 OF 2014
DATED: 14.11.2014 Between:
Donka Sureedamma … Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1391 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 29.10.2014, by which, His Lordship has been pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition having found effective alternative remedy under Section 153A of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).
The appellant has filed the Writ Petition for the following reliefs:
“…the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s or Directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of whip by the fourth respondent on 04.07.2014 being non- recognized/non-functionary of the YSRCP is contrary to Section 153 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules of A.P. Conduct of Elections of Members and violation of Article 243E of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the third respondent RC.No.25/2014/C.S, dated 09.10.2014 ordering the petitioner ceased to be the member of M.P.T.C., Geddakancharam, G.Sigadam Mandal, by declaring the same is illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice.”
The issue involved in the aforesaid Writ Petition is whether the whip issued by a non-political party is lawful or not and whether consequent order, dated 09.10.2014 ordering that the writ petitioner ceases to be the member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, is lawful or not. The learned trial Judge found that under Section 153A of the Act, there is appropriate alternative remedy.
153A. Resolution of disputes relating to cessation for disobedience of party whip :- Where a member against whom a proceeding that he ceased to hold office as a consequence of the disobedience of the party whip is issued in pursuance of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 153 and the affected member disputes the correctness of the proceedings, he may apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of the Mandal Parishad is situated, for a decision.
Therefore, looking at the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the dispute raised by the writ petitioner can effectively be adjudicated by the said forum and it is for the writ petitioner to seek appropriate interlocutory relief and this Court held so in a judgment of this Court in Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao and others v. Government of Andhra
[1]
Pradesh . Therefore, we do not like to interfere with the impugned order, when the learned trial Judge in exercise of the discretion has refused to entertain the Writ Petition in view of availability of alternative remedy.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that this is a question of violation of principles of natural justice.
We think every violation of principles of natural justice should not be examined by the Writ Court on mere asking. This point can also be taken care of by aforesaid forum.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
14th NOVEMBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
kvni
[1] 2007(2) ALT 65
SANJAY KUMAR, J