Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 299 (AP)

A. Satyanarayana Reddy v. Government Of A. P.

2001-03-20

body2001
SATYABRATA SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) A question was posed across the Bar as to whether having regard to the decision of the apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 , this writ application is maintainable. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon a division Bench judgment of this Court in v. Vinod Rao v. Government of A. P. , 1991 (1) ALD 147 (DB), submits that a party can directly approach the High Court in the first instance. The said decision, in our considered opinion, goes against the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as would appear from the following observation of the Division Bench:28. The Supreme Court in L. Chandra kumar s case cited (supra) has held that the Tribunals would continue to act as the courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, it meant that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the high Court. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we do not think we can entertain the writ petition directly under Article, 226 of the Constitution of India unless the petitioners are subjected to a decision from the Tribunal-7th respondent. Petitioners have rightly approached the tribunal-7th respondent at the first instance by filing OA No. 7776 of 1998 questioning g. O. Ms. No. 402, dated 26-9-1998 issued by the second respondent. Since the matter is pending before the Tribunal-7th respondent, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the 7th respondent to dispose of said OA No. 7776 of 1998 within a reasonable time. " ( 3 ) CERTAIN observations had been made by the learned Bench as regards the power of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. But such observations, in our opinion, do not go to the rescue of the petitioner herein having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra humor s case clearly laying down that an aggrieved person has to approach the administrative Tribunal in the first instance. But such observations, in our opinion, do not go to the rescue of the petitioner herein having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra humor s case clearly laying down that an aggrieved person has to approach the administrative Tribunal in the first instance. ( 4 ) FURTHER more, the parties aggrieved by non-implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal may invoke the powers of the Tribunal as laid down in Sections 17, and 27 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 read with Rule 26 of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) rules, 1989 or such other provisions laid down therein, which provide for, inter alia, the procedure to be followed in such cases in order to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process in securing the ends of justice. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this application is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.