Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 275 (AP)

K. Shankar Yadav v. Saleem Bee

2002-02-20

S.R.K.PRASAD, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
( 1 ) THE appellants are the Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat, Patancheru, Medak District and they have filed this writ appeal with the leave of the Court. ( 2 ) THE writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7. 4. 1997 made in Writ Petition No. 5466 of 1997. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, viz. , Saleema Bee praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Patnacheru, Medak District, the first respondent in the writ petition and the second respondent herein, in not according permission even after the order of the District Panchayat Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District, the third respondent herein, dated 25. 2. 1997 approving the plan submitted by the petitioner as illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the Executive Officer to accord permission to the writ petitioner as per the plan approved by the third respondent. ( 3 ) THE appellants herein are not impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition. However, from a perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, it is seen that the learned single Judge took strong exception to the action of the Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat in passing resolution rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for sanction of the plan. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge while granting relief to the writ petitioner further directed that the District Panchayat Officer shall realise costs from the Sarpanch and the Members of the Gram Panchayat and pay the same to the writ petitioner by way of cheque. The learned Judge has also fixed the Advocate s fee at Rs. 10,000. 00. This writ appeal is confined to that part of the order of the learned single Judge by which the learned Judge has directed the District Panchayat Officer to recover the costs from the Sarpanch and the Members of the Gram Panchayat and the appellants do not assail the validity of the other part of the order. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The only question that arises for our decision is whether the learned Judge is justified in directing the District Panchayat Officer to realise the costs from the Sarpanch and the Members of the Gram Panchayat or not. ( 5 ) AS already pointed out supra, the appellants herein, who are the Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat, are not impleaded as parties to the writ petition. It is trite to state that the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the District Panchayat Officer to recover the costs from the Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat, undoubtedly, has the effect of affecting the civil rights of the Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat jointly and severally. It is a cardinal principle of natural justice as well as a mandate flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India that no adverse order could be made against a person, which has the effect of affecting his legal rights, without appraising him and giving him an opportunity to defend himself. In that view of the matter, the direction of the learned single Judge impugned in this writ appeal cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice and Art. 14 postulates. ( 6 ) IN the result, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 7. 4. 1997 made in Writ Petition No. 5466 of 1997 in so far as the learned Judge has directed the District Panchayat Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District to realise the costs from the Sarpanch and the Members of the Gram Panchayat. In all other respects the order of the learned single Judge shall stand unaltered. No costs.