V. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS
THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER
Click here to view full judgement.
Per Obul Reddi, J. -
(1.) There is no impediment in or restriction on the power of the Chief Justice in the matter of constitution of Benches or Full Benches and that power is an administrative power vested in him for proper constitution of Benches for purposes of disposal of the cases before the Court had for proper purposes of disposal of the cases before the Court and for proper functioning of the Court in the interests of the administration of justice.
(2.) The principle underlying sub-clause (3) of Article 16 should equally apply in interpreting the provisions of Article 35, sub-clause (a) and (b) : and judged by that test, the only possible conclusion is that the mulki rules cannot be regarded as a law which continues in force today.
(3) The mulki law, to the extent it survived (Rule 1(b) read with Rule 3) after the advent of the Constitution was good law only till the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1st November 1956 and not thereafter. The decision of the Full Bench in P. Lakshmanarao's Case (A.I.R. 1971 A.P. 118) therefore, must be overruled, as it runs contrary to the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao,s case (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 422).
(4) Per Rondiah, J. - It has to be noted that the power vested in the Chief Justice under rules 5 and 6 of the Appellate Side Rules is only discretionary and administrative in nature, but is not of judicial character. Hence, the Chief Justice is not obliged to pass any regular judicial order giving reasons for constituting a Full or Fuller Bench.
(5) The erstwhile Hyderabad States which did not validly accede to the Dominion of India before the advent of the Constitution, was a part of the territory of India within the meaning of Article 35(b) and the Mulki rules prescribing residential qualification for public employment within the State of Hyderabad, which were kept in fact on January 26, 1950, are saved by virtue of the provisions of Article 35(b).
(6) It is only Section 3 in so far as it relates to Telangana and rule 3 of the rules made thereunder, but not the whole of section 3, that were struck down. Section 2 or any portion thereof was not found to be invalid. The Parliament was competent to enact section 2 by virtue of the power vested in it under Article 35(b) or (a) of the Constitution. The invalid portion of section 3 is separable from the valid part of that very section apart from section 2 which is unconnected with it. There is no basis or justification to apply the rule of implied repeal to hold that section 2 or any portion thereof must be deemed to be invalid or section 3 pertaining to Telangana being struck down as ultra vires. Even if the intendment was to substitute section 3 for the Mulki rules 1(b) and 3, the validity of section 2 it not affected. The Mulki rules will not revise and cannot be deemed to be effective on the Supreme Court striking down section 3 pertraning to Telangana.
(7) Per Madhava Reddy, J. - The principle of state decisis does not take away the right of a Division Bench to direct a matter covered by an earlier Full Bench decision to be reconsidered by another Full Bench.
(8) It must be that the laws that were in fore before the commencement of the Constitution i.e. 26th January, 1950 in such territories of India from 26th day of January, 1950 that are to continue in force by virtue of Article 35(b) and Article 372 until altered or repealed or amended by the parliament.
(3) Rule 1 (b) read with Rules 3 and 4 and the remaining 'Mulki Rules' contained in Appendix 'N' of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations in so far as they prescribe the procedure for granting 'Mulki Certificates' to those to who are deemed to be 'Mulkies' under Rule 1(b) read with Rules 3 and 3 long with Act. 39 thereof survive and continue to be in force as 'valid law' even after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh notwithstanding the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. The view expressed by the earlier Full Bench in P.L. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh must be affirmed.
(3.) Per A.D.V. Reddy, J. - Though the Mulki Rules in (Sic) far as they relate to Clauses 1(a) and (3) of Rule 39 contained (Sic) Regulations promulgated in obedience to the Nizam's Farmana dated 26th Ramzan 1337-H (18-6-1919) relating to the appointments to the superior and inferior service in the Nizam's domiaions continued to be valid after the coming into force of the Constitution on 26-1-1950, they ceased to be good law on 1-11-1956 consequent on the formation of Andhra Pradesh State and even if they are to be considered to be valid after 1-11-1956, they stood repaled under Section 2 Act XLIV of 1957 and did not revive by reason of the Supreme Court striking down part of Section 3 of that Act relating to Telangana in A.V.S.N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) and that consequently Mulki Rules are no longer valid law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.