Decided on March 26,1992

S.V.S. Ramakrishnarao Appellant
The Government of A.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



Subhashan Reddy, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition is filed challenging the deletion of the area consisting of 2,292 voters from Mandapaka Gram Panchayat Tanuku Rural Mandal West Godavari District for the formation of a Township. The facts concisely stated are that from the Mandapaka Gram Panchayat a particular area was sought to be deleted in order to constitute the same into a Township under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. But under the provisions of the said Act preceding the constitution of the Township it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to delete that part of the area from, the Gram Panchayat and for that deletion a mandatory procedure is prescribed under the second proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the A P Gram Panchayats Act obligating the concerned authority to issue a prior notice to the party affected. There are several facts anterior to Writ Appeal No. 503 of 1983 and it was unnecessary for us now to advert to the same as they are irrelevant in view of the finality attained by the said judgment delivered on 6 -7 -1987 and the same had become final. The said judgment was also reported in P Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Government of A P, 1987 (2) APLJ 149. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment there is a specific direction to the effect that the authority under Section 3(2) should issue notice to the concerned Gram Panchayat regarding proposal to delete the area. It is admitted in the counter filed by the Governmental authority that after the said judgment in the writ appeal was passed no notice was issued. Their explanation is that since the judgment in the writ appeal was not communicated to them they passed the impugned order dated 18 -2 -1988. But the fact remains that four months prior to passing of the impugned order the judgment in the writ appeal bad become final and it was binding on the authority. We cannot countenance an argument that the judgment in the writ appeal was not known to the concerned authority before passing the impugned order. We cannot also accept the argument of Sri C Kodandaram the learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents that since notice was already given before the judgment was passed in the writ appeal no notice need be given inspite of the specific direction being issued in the writ appeal. He also points out that after the judgment in the writ appeal was pronounced the learned Judge who was a party to the writ appeal himself dismissed Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1983 on 8 -10 -1987 holding that "in view of the fact that opportunity has been given to the Gram Panchayat this writ petition does not survive. Hence dismissed".
(2.)THIS order might have been passed by the learned Single Judge without knowing the earlier order passed and even though he was a Member of the Bench it is impossible to keep 'track of each and every judgment delivered by the learned Judge. It was the duty of the Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel to apprise the learned Single Judge of the earlier Bench judgment which was binding on him. As such the order dated 8 -10 -1987 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1983 is per incuriam and does not operate and what operates is the judgment dated 6 -7 -1987 passed by the Division Bench of which the said learned Single Judge was a party and the said direction has to be complied with and there is no other alternative.
In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order and direct the authority concerned to issue notice as contemplated by the second proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the A P Gram Panchayats Act 1964 before deleting any area from the Mandapaka Gram Panchayat. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 300/ -.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.