M. GNANAMANI Vs. GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO GOVT. OF ANDHRA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Governor of Andhra represented by the Chief Secy. to Govt. of Andhra
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, C.J. -
(1.) THIS is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Government of Andhra and the State of Andhra.
(2.) THE petitioner is a B.E. of the Madras University. He was working in the II Circle as an Assistant Engineer. On 15 -1 -1953, an order of Government dated 22 -12 -1952 was served on him imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. Against that order, he preferred an appeal to the Governor of Madras. After the Andhra State was formed, the papers were transferred to the Governor of Andhra for disposal.
When he wrote to the Governor of Andhra for information, he received a reply from the Secretary that his petition was sent to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Andhra, for disposal. Among other grounds, he claimed that the action of the Governor in asking the Government to dispose of the appeal was without jurisdiction and reduced the provisions for an -appeal to a farce, as the very authority which passed the original orders was asked to dispose of the appeal. He asks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Governor, as well as the Government.
I gave notice to the Advocate General to argue the point, whether a writ would lie in the circumstances against the Governor of Andhra. I am grateful to him for the assistance he has given to the Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the immunity given to the Governor in Article 361(1) of the Constitution is confined to the powers and duties conferred on him under the Constitution and not to powers and duties conferred on him otherwise. He would say that the Governor has the powers to entertain an appeal and a duty to hear it under Rule 20(c) of the Madras Civil Services Rules and the immunity given under Art. 361(1) cannot be extended to the powers exercisable by him under those rules, whereas the learned Advocate -General broadly contended that Art. 361 makes a distinction between the powers and duties of the Governor's Office and his acts unconnected with that office, and that, in the former case, there is an absolute bar from any process of Court, whereas in the latter case, it is only protected to a limited extent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.