K NAGESWARA RAO Vs. P N BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition at the stage of admission. A writ of Quo Warranto was asked for restraining the 1st respondent, Sri P.N. Bakshi, Chairman, A P. Administrative Tribunal, from functioning as such. The learned single judge was of the opinion that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, by virtue of Clause (7) of Art. 371-D of the constitution. We shall first state the grounds upon which Quo Warranto is asked for.

(2.) The petitioner (appellant) is an advocate practising in this Courtand the A P. Administrative Tribunal. Sri P. N. Bakshi was appointed the Chairman of the Tribunal for a term of three years, which expired on 12-12-1986. At the time of appointment he was a judge of the Allahabad High Court. He attainted the age of 65 years on 6-2-1987. Notwithstanding the .expiry of his term, Sri P.N. Bakshi is continuing as the Chairman of the Tribunal by virtue of the proviso to paragraph 3 (3) of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975. The main contention of the appellant is that the proviso to paragraph 3(3) does not apply to the Chairman, nor does it enable the 1st respondent to continue after the expiry of his term. According to him, paragraph 4 is the relevant paragraph applicable to the Chairman, according to which once the term is expired, he cannot continue as the Chairman. The learned single Judge, however, did not express himself on this question, because of his opinion that this Court is precluded from entertajning the said writ petition. Two questions thus arise for consideration in this writ appeal, viz., (i) whether the present writ petition is barred by clause (7) of Art. 371-D of the Constitution of India, and (ii) whether the 1st respondent is not entitled to continue as the Chairman of the Tribunal under the provisions of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975.

(3.) Art. 371-D was introduced in the constitution by the Constitution(Thirty Second Amendment) Act, 1973, which came into force with effect from 1-7-1974. It is unnecessary to set out the background or the course of events that led to the enactment of the said Article, which are set out in the several decisions of this Court, and recently by the Supreme Court in P. Sambamurthy vs. State of A.P. #1 Suffice it to mention that the object behind the said Article was to create and set up an Administrative Tribunal with jurisdiction,power and authority to decide all questions relating to public services in the State of Andhra Pradesh in substitution of the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court was excluded to the extent the service matters were placed within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It would be appropriate to set out the Relevant clauses of the Article, viz., Clauses (3), (4), (7) and (30) of Art. 371-D. The read :