Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 32 (AP)

Gongula Jitender v. Syed Saleem

2018-01-19

SANJAY KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. The petitioners in this civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, are the fourth and fifth respondents in O.P.No.752 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Their grievance presently is as to the non-disposal of the said O.P. by the Court below. This O.P. was filed by the first respondent herein under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in relation to the disqualification alleged against him by the petitioners herein, the fourth and fifth respondents in the O.P., to continue to hold the offices of Ward Member and Upa-Sarpanch of Bachupally Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District. The complaint made by the fourth and fifth respondents in the O.P. to the authorities was that he had more than two children and therefore suffered a statutory disqualification. 2. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, the fourth and fifth respondents in the O.P., would state that the Court below is disinclined to take up the subject O.P. for hearing and disposal, owing to the circular instructions issued by this Court to all subordinate Courts in its jurisdiction to give priority to only pre-2012 pending matters. Learned counsel would point out that the docket orders dated 21.03.2017, 01.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 05.07.2017 and 30.08.2017 passed in the subject O.P. would demonstrate that the I.A. filed by the petitioner in the subject O.P., the first respondent herein, for interim protection, is being adjourned from time to time. He would further state that the very filing of this interim protection I.A. was unnecessary, in the light of the statutory protection afforded to the petitioner in the O.P., the first respondent herein, under the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Learned counsel would point out that the election of the petitioner in the O.P., the first respondent herein, as a Ward Member and an Upa-Sarpanch was in April, 2014, and that he suffers from statutory disqualification to hold office as he had four children, which led his clients to complain to the authorities resulting in the petitioner in the O.P., the first respondent herein, approaching the Court below by way of the subject O.P. seeking declaratory relief. He would point out that the elected term of the petitioner in the O.P., the first respondent herein, would soon come to an end, while he merrily continues to hold the offices of Ward Member and Upa-Sarpanch, notwithstanding the disqualification suffered by him. 3. In the light of the afore stated facts and circumstances and as this Court does not propose to adjudicate on the merits of the matter, it would be wholly unnecessary to put the first respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P., on notice at this stage or afford him an opportunity of hearing. Violation of the principles of natural justice or the due procedure does not arise as this Court does not propose to venture into the merits of the case, let alone pass any order adverse to the first respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P. 4. At the outset it may be noted that the very purpose of filing of the subject O.P. by the first respondent herein would become otiose and redundant once he completes his term of office as a Ward Member and an Upa-Sarpanch. That being so, priority should invariably be given to hearing and adjudication of the subject O.P. Otherwise, the subject O.P. stands the risk of being rendered in-fructuous by efflux of time and expiry of the term of office of the first respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P. However, failure to abide by the circular instructions issued by this Court would invite the wrath of this Court and result in depletion of the usual units to be awarded to the judicial officer concerned, for having disposed of a post-2012 matter. 5. Given this dichotomy in these competing interests, this Court is of the opinion that this aspect of the matter should be considered by the High Court on the administrative side and suitable modifications should be made and effected in the instructions issued, which presently require judicial officers in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh to give absolute priority only to pre-2012 pending matters, as a just exception would necessarily have to be made in every case which cannot afford to wait its turn as per the regime now visited upon the trial Courts in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 6. 6. Apart from cases such as the present one, involving a dispute relating to an elected office of limited tenure, cases concerning custody or guardianship of children, cases of divorce or involving other pressing matrimonial issues, are illustrative of matters which should be carved out from the rigour of the subject circular instructions. Be it noted, merely because divorce cases of earlier vintage are still pending consideration, it would not justify the justice delivery system prolonging a marital tie between spouses, when one or both is/are averse to it, only on the short ground that their case is of recent origin, and all the more so, when the estranged couple are ready and willing to break their bond. 7. In so far as the subject O.P. is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that disposal of the same should not invite any adversity upon the judicial officer concerned, as the case cannot be kept pending to the detriment of the petitioners herein, the fourth and fifth respondents in the O.P., who complained about the disqualification suffered by the petitioner in the O.P., the first respondent herein, to hold the offices of a Ward Member and an Upa-Sarpanch, but are yet to see any fruitful result, owing to the pendency of the subject O.P., which would inevitably die a natural death upon impending completion in office by the first respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P., due to expiry of the term. Therefore, the depletion of units for disposal of the subject O.P. by the Court below, as prescribed by and under the circular instructions issued by this Court, shall not be made applicable and the full units to be allotted for disposal of a case of this nature shall be adhered to. The Court below shall therefore endeavour to see that the subject O.P. is disposed of expeditiously. 8. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. 10. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the High Court on the administrative side expeditiously.