THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.30829 of 2014
Date:28.10.2014 Between:
Siripuram Madan Mohan Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30829 of 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri G. Raja Babu, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7, and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice issued by the Director of Mines and Geology – the 2nd respondent, dated 09.10.2014, wherein he proposed to conduct enquiry in terms of directions of this Court in W.A.No.1186 of 2014 and batch, dated 12.09.2014. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench is as follows:
“In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is set aside and we direct the Government to dispose of the representation as mentioned in the prayer of the writ petitions in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioners as well as the impleaded respondents but before allowing the hearing to the impleaded respondents, whether they have locus in this matter has to be examined and whether they have got any interest in the issue raised in the representation. If they do not have any interest establishing their locus, their objections should not be entertained.
The Government thereafter shall also decide whether this sort of representation can be entertained under the law and then decide the matter on merit. The Government shall take a decision independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by us or by the learned trial Judge. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
The impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court directed the Government to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders and in the light of the said specific directions of the Division Bench, it is only the 1st respondent which could have complied with the directions of this Court by considering the representations, by giving appropriate opportunity and notice to all the parties and therefore the 2nd respondent is not competent to hear and decide the matter. The petitioner states that he is one of the parties who was seeking impleadment in the writ appeal and he was impleaded as respondent in the writ appeal and the Division Bench directed the locus of the present writ petitioner shall also be considered by the Government, while hearing the matter. The petitioner states that in response to the said impugned notice, he had filed preliminary objections on 13.10.2014 before the 2nd respondent. However, the enquiry now fixed by the Government is 20.11.2014. This Court granted interim stay on 15.10.2014, while issuing notice before admission. However, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent to consider the matter in the light of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court.
Today when the writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has placed before this Court the instructions issued by respondents 1 and 2 which include a memo issued by the Government, dated 08.10.2014, wherein it is stated as under:
“The attention of the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited. The Government have examined the matter. The Director of Mines and Geology is the 2nd respondent in the case and is also a quasi judicial authority in several matters. Hence, the Director of mines and Geology is advised to review the matter by giving proper hearing to the parties and dispose of the case in a fair and transparent manner within seven days as advised by the Hon’ble High Court.”
In view of the said memo, apparently the 2nd respondent was directed to take up the exercise. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit and submits that the Director is only proposing to conduct enquiry and ultimately the order is required to be passed by the Government.
However, the memo of the 1st respondent, extracted above, leaves no room to doubt that the Government desires the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry and dispose of the case as per the directions of this Court, whereas the directions of this Court are clearly for the Government – the 1st respondent to comply and not for the Director. Since the 1st respondent has not acted in terms of the directions of the writ appeal, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice as permitting the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders instead the 1st respondent, would be contrary to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal, referred to above.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside.
The 1st respondent is directed to take steps forthwith and comply with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court as extracted above and pass appropriate orders without any further loss of time. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
28.10.2014
KH