Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: S. Tripura Sundari, Advocate.
Judges
  • Jeevan Reddy, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: S. Tripura Sundari, Advocate.
Judges
  • Jeevan Reddy, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises against the backdrop of numerous writ petitions filed in this High Court concerning conditions of service of State Government employees, despite the constitution and existence of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D of the Constitution and the presidential order issued thereunder. The Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate service matters of State Government employees to the exclusion of the High Court.

The constitutionality of Article 371-D had been questioned both before the Supreme Court and this Court, but that constitutional challenge remained undecided for reasons not relevant to this opinion. Notwithstanding the Tribunal's exclusive remit, petitioners continued to approach this Court, identifying specific reasons for bypassing the Tribunal (set out below). Different judges of this Court reacted inconsistently to such petitions, leading to uncertainty; a Full Bench reference failed to resolve the controversy, and the Court observed a proliferation of writs seeking directions to implement Tribunal orders that had become effective but were alleged to be unimplemented.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether writ petitioners may approach this High Court instead of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 371-D, particularly where Tribunal orders are said to have been implemented or not implemented by the government.
  2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to pass interim (including ex parte) orders that are effective immediately even if the impugned administrative order is claimed to have been implemented.
  3. Whether Tribunal orders (interim and final) are being implemented by the government and whether the Tribunal possesses effective machinery to enforce its orders, including power to punish for contempt.
  4. Whether clause (5) of Article 371-D, which confers power of annulment upon the government, constitutes an unguided and absolute power susceptible of abuse.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The Tribunal lacks power to pass ex parte interim orders; it must give a week's notice to the concerned authority before passing interim orders, and if the impugned administrative order is already implemented during that notice period, the Tribunal cannot effectively pass interim relief — causing prejudice to petitioners even if they ultimately succeed.
  • The Tribunal's orders, both interim and final, are frequently not implemented by the government; the Tribunal has no enforcement machinery and no power to punish for contempt, leaving successful parties without the fruits of Tribunal orders and dependent on the government's discretion to implement.
  • Clause (5) of Article 371-D grants the government an unguided and absolute power of annulment over Tribunal orders, creating uncertainty and potential arbitrariness.

The opinion does not set out a detailed, formal statement of the respondents' counter-arguments; it records that the learned government pleader sought time for counsel and that the government may apply for modification of the Court's order within two weeks.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the petitioners' complaints seriatim and explained its legal reasoning as follows:

  1. Complaint (a) — tribunal's power to pass interim orders:
    • The Court found no force in the argument that the Tribunal is entirely bereft of power to pass appropriate interim orders merely because the impugned order is said to have been implemented. Reasonable construction permits the Tribunal to pass such interim orders as the situation calls for even where implementation is said to have occurred.
    • The Court emphasized the temporal effectiveness of Tribunal orders: interim orders are effective the moment they are passed (subject to annulment under clause (5) within the prescribed period), whereas final Tribunal orders become effective and enforceable after the expiry of three months (again subject to annulment under clause (5)).
  2. Complaint (b) — non-implementation and lack of enforcement machinery:
    • The Court acknowledged that this complaint is justified and not factually incorrect: some Tribunal orders are ignored, some implemented selectively and at the government's leisure. The Tribunal lacks the power to commit for contempt and has limited means to compel implementation.
    • The Court noted that this situation has produced numerous writ petitions seeking directions to implement effective Tribunal orders, indicating that non-implementation is not an isolated phenomenon (examples before the Court ranged from orders unimplemented for three months to three years).
  3. Complaint (c) — annulment power under clause (5):
    • The Court accepted that the complaint is justifiable, but observed that its rigour has been reduced recently by decisions of this Court requiring the government to hear the affected party before annulling a Tribunal order.
  4. Institutional and constitutional considerations:
    • The Court analysed the practical consequences of permitting the government to choose whether to implement effective Tribunal orders and found that such discretion would lead to arbitrary, discriminatory outcomes contrary to Articles 14 and 16 (equal protection and reasonableness). The government could implement some orders and not others, partially implement orders, or delay implementation such that the efficacy of the order would be defeated.
    • Different judicial responses within this Court — some judges issuing interim relief, others declining because of jurisdictional bars under Article 371-D — had created legal uncertainty. The Court deemed that where a widespread malady exists, a general remedy is appropriate rather than case-by-case adjudication that would both duplicate proceedings and risk defeating justice in the interval.
    • The Court treated the remedy as an elucidation of prevailing law, not judicial legislation; it invoked the role of courts in public interest litigation and the constitutional mandate to uphold Articles 14 and 16 to justify its directions aimed at restoring the rule of law and preventing arbitrary administrative conduct.
  5. Directions and procedural posture:
    • The Court clarified temporal effect: interim orders of the Tribunal take effect immediately upon being made (subject to annulment under clause (5)), and final Tribunal orders take effect on expiry of three months from their pronouncement (unless annulled or modified under clause (5)).
    • Given the lack of enforceability of Tribunal orders by the Tribunal itself, the Court concluded that it is necessary to make the implementation of effective Tribunal orders obligatory on the government and its officers, enforceable by contempt proceedings before this Court if necessary.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court directed that the government, its officers, and all respondents to an effective order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal — both interim and final (as temporally delineated in the opinion) — shall be bound to implement and obey such orders. The Court declared that refusal to implement such effective Tribunal orders will, henceforth, be treated as contempt of this Court's order and this Court may be approached to punish such respondents for contempt according to law.

Other operative points made by the Court:

  • The Court reiterated that interim Tribunal orders are effective immediately upon being made, subject to annulment or modification under clause (5) of Article 371-D within the period and manner prescribed by law.
  • The Court reiterated that final Tribunal orders are effective on expiry of three months from the date of pronouncement, provided they are not annulled or modified under clause (5) within that period.
  • The Court stated this direction is an elucidation of existing law and not intended to prejudice the government or any authority; the government and respondents may apply for modification or rescission of the Court's order within two weeks from the date of the opinion.
  • Regarding the specific writ petition before the Court, the Court observed that it ought to be dismissed in light of the order; however, because the government may seek modification or rescission of the directive, the petition was not disposed of and an interim suspension was granted as prayed for.

Implications:

  • The immediate practical effect is to render non-implementation of effective Tribunal orders actionable by contempt proceedings in this Court, thereby creating a judicial enforcement route where the Tribunal lacks coercive powers.
  • The Court characterized the direction as an elucidation (not the setting of a novel precedent) and indicated that it should relieve the Court's docket of repetitive writ petitions seeking implementation of Tribunal orders by providing a general remedy enforceable by contempt proceedings.
  • If no modification is sought or granted, respondents will be obliged to implement effective Tribunal orders or face contempt consequences; the present opinion therefore alters the enforcement dynamics between Tribunal orders and executive compliance within the factual and legal context described.

This summary is limited to and based exclusively upon the information contained in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

    M.V. Subbanna v. Superintendent Of Police

    (1) In the recent years, this court is being flooded with writ petitions relating to the conditions of service of the state government employees notwithstanding the constitution of a special and exclusive tribunal to adjudicate upon the same. Under art 371 - d of the constitution and the presidential order issued thereunder, the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal has been constituted, to the exclusion of the high court, to adjudicate upon the service conditions of the employees of the state government.

    (2) The constitutionality of art. 371 - d has been questioned both in supreme court and this court, but, for reasons not relevant here, the issue has remained undecided.

    (3) The petitioners approaching this court, ignoring the tribunal, assign the following reasons for not going to tribunal and for approaching this court: (a) the tribunal has no power to pass exparte interim orders; it has necessarily to give a week notice to the concerned authority before passing interim orders; meanwhile the impugned order is implemented and it is argued that since the order is already implemented, no interim order can by passed; the petitioner thus suffers, in msnv cases, uncalled for prejudice, though he may succeed ultimately; (b) the orders of the tribunal, both interim and final, are not being implemented by the government, even where they are not annulled under clause (5). There is no machinery available to the tribunal to enforce its oiders it has no power to punish any one for contempt thus the petitioners have to wait upon the pleasure of the government/authority to implement the order, in it's own time and manner. The petitioners are thus in a helpless situation, they cannot go to supreme court, since they have succeeded before the tribunal at the same time, the fruits of the order are not available to them. The government neither goes to supreme court against the order, nor does it implement; and (c) the power of annulment conferred upon tha government by clause (5) of art. 371 - d, is an unguided and absolute power.

    (4) It cannot be said that there is no force in complaints (b) and (c). So far as complaint (a) is concerned, i see no force in it. Probably, the requirement of notice to the authority;/govt. Before passing the interim order is a desirable one. But it is not correct to say that the tribunal is bereft of the power to pass appropriale interim orders, just because the impugned order is said to have been implemented. Such an interpretation would make the very power and its conferment meaningless. Reasonably understood, it means that even where the order is said to have been implemented, the tribunal can pass such appropriate interim orders as the situation may call for. Moreover, it is important to remember that whereas a final order passed by the tribunal bscones effective and enforceable after the expiry of three months (see ciauso (5) of art. 371 - d, the interim order is effective the moment it is passed, though it may be that the powar of annulment extends to both the orders. Until annulled, the interim order is erffective' and enforceable. Now coming to complaint (b) , the justification behind it is undeniable. It is also tually not incorrect. Not that, all orders of the tribunal are being ignored; some are and yet some others are being implemented at the leisure and pleasure of the government/authority, indeed, in the recent months this court has seen a spate of writ petitions to direct the respondent government/authority to implement the order of the tribunal, which has become effective. Such directions are being given as a concomitant of rule of law. So far as complaint (c) is concerned, it is equally justifiable, though its rigour has been reduced in the recent months as a result of the decisions of this court, holding that the government must hear the affected party before annulling the order.

    (5) Now the situation is this: an interim order passed by tha tribunal is effective forthwith (subject to annulment within three months) a final order of the tribunal is effective on expiry of three months provided it is not annulled meanwhile. This is what clause (5) of art. 371 - d says. But the tribunal has no means to compel implementation of its orders. It has - been held that it has no powei to commit anyone for contempt. Indeed, when it sought to do so, the government and its officials squarely took the stand that it has no such powers and the tribunal had to agree that it is so. That is why, petitioners say they come to high court. Faced with such a situation, different judges of this court have reacted differently. Some have been straightaway passing interim/interlocutory orders (admission being a certainty, since the constitutionality of art. 371 - d is questioned) as may be called for in the facts of the case, some have baen refusing to do so, in view of the bar created by clauses (3) and (7) of art. 371 - d, on the ground that unless thev are struck down' this court does not get the jurisdiction to pass any interim orders. A full bench was constituted to resolve this controversy, but unfortunately the problem has remained. There was yet another reference to full bench, but that proved inconclusive, with the result, tha uncertainty continues, each judge applying his own gloss upon it. It has created a very uncertain and unsa - tisfactory, situation a no win situation. If you interfere in every case, the very creation and existence of the tribunal becomes meaningless. On the others hand, if you don't and drive the petitioners to the tribunal, the difficulty pointed out in (b) and (c) above remains its orders are not being implemented in some cases and no one can say in which cases the government will implement them and in which cases, not. Above all, it has given rise to an inherently atbitary and discriminatory situation, which cannot be countenanced or continued by this court. The government/ aurhority cannot be allowed to take the stand that it cannot be compelled to implement an enforceable (effective) order of the tribunal. The respondent government/authority cannot be given the option, the choice, to either implement or not to implement an effective order. If this is allowed, it will implement the order in one case and not in the other; in yet another case, it will implement partly and even where it imdlements, it may do so in its own way and at the time of its choosing, which may in effect, defeat the very order. Such an inherently arbitrary and discriminatory situation is the very negation of the equal protection clause enshrined in articles 14 and 16. It is the very antithesis of reasonableness, which is held to be inherent in these articles. It is therefore, the duty of this court, enjoined by the constitution, to remedy such a situation; it cannot and should not allow such a situation to continue. Where the malady is general, it calls for a general cure. This court need not drive every petitioner who has an effective order from the tribunal in his favour but which has not been implemented to a writ petition the implementation of the tribunal's order, it means not only duplication of proceedings but may very often defeat the ends of justice the mischief may has bsen done meanwhile. Public interest and interests of justice demand that this situation is remedied. After all, it is on these grounds that courts are giving relief even to those who are not actually approaching the courts what is called public interest litigation. There may be many, who have an order of the tribunal an effective order in their favour but which has remained un - implemented. They may not be in a position to come to this court for one or the other reason. That the non - implementation is no an infrequent phenomenon is evident from b single fact today, before me, there are at least four writ petitions in the motion - list, seeking direction from this court to the respondents to implement the orders of the tribunal which have become effective quite some time ago. Ranging from three moths to three years.

    (6) When i called upon the learned government pleader about this situation, he required time for counser. But, as i have said herein before, the matter cannot be left to the choice of the government/authority. !t is a matter of rule of law, not a matter of choice of of an authority, or government.

    (7) Accordingly, it is directed that the government, its officers, and s\\ the respondents to an effective order of the tribunal - both interim and final, as explained above - shall be bound to implement and obey the same. Refusal to do so hereafter would be a contempt of this court's order, and this court can be approached for punishing such respondents for contempt of court, irrording to law. This is the meaning of rule of law and this court is bound by constitution to up hold it. I repeated that interim orders are effective, the moment they are made, subject to their being annulled or modified under clause (5) of art. 371 - d within the period prescribed and in the manner provided by law, and that the final orders are effective on the expiry of three months from the date of their pronouncement, provided they are not annulled or modified under the said clause (5).

    (8) This order is merely an elucidation of prevailing law, not fin order to the prejudice of government or any authority. However if the government or the respondents wish to apply for modification of this order, they can do so within two weeks from today.

    (9) A critic may say that this is judicial legislation. It is not certainly not today, when public interest litigation has come to stay and when the courts can suo motu take cognizance of a situation violative of constitutional guarantees and issue appropriate directions. It is only a case of law and the law - courts rising to the occasion, to meet the justice inherent in the prevailing situation, to mete out justice in fulfilment of its constitutional obligation and mandate of articles 14 and 16. This will also relieve this court of unnecessary and uncalled for burden, viz. , writ petitions relating to service conditions of employees governed by the presidential order, and writ petitions to direct implementation of the effective orders of the a p administrative tribunal.

    (10) So far as this w p m p. , is concerned, it ought to be dismissed in the light of this order, but inasmuch as the respondents and the government may have an opportunity to apply for modification 01 rescission of this order, i am not disposing it of. There shall be an interim suspension, as prayed for.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    M.V. Subbanna v. Superintendent Of Police
    (Jan 23, 1986)