A SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. KRISHNA KANTH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-29
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 12,1992

A.SATYANARAYANA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
KRISHNA KANTH, H.E.GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The matter has come up for orders on the objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the writ petition, filed against the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, by name. Sri Naga Seshaiah, learned Government Pleader was requested to assist the Court. He accordingly appeared and contended that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds, namely, (1) the writ petition filed against the Governor of a State by name is not maintainable under Article 361 of the Constitution of India; and (2) the writ petition also is not maintainable in this Court as it pertains to the service matter of the petitioner, and is barred by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(2.)The petitioner served as a Veterinary Asst. Surgeon in the A.P. Animal husbandry Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. The sole respondent in the writ petition is, Sri Krishna Kanth, Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner prays for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.1 Crore. As an interim relief the petitioner sought a direction for payment of Rs. One Lakh. The petitioner alleged that he was victimised by the order in G.O.Ms.No.728, Food and Agriculture, dt.24-10-1991 issued "by the Order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh". The petitioner further submits that he was entitled to proper fixation of pay and payment of arrears from 1-4-1970.
(3.)As observed earlier, the petitioner seeks a relief connected with his service in the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Veterinary Asst. Surgeon. He questions the Government Order issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. Any claim against the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, whether in the capacity of a Governor or in his individual name,is barred under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:
"Article 361:

(1) The President, or the Governor of a State shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties: Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under Article 261; Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of State, in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to bedone by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office as President or as Governor of such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor, as the case may be, or left at his office stating the nature of proceedings, the cause of action thereof, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which he claims."

;


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