Skip to content


Ku. G. Sreenivasulu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 874 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972AP215
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantKu. G. Sreenivasulu
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateP.A. Chowdary, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....along with candidates placed above in merit list should be called to present before principal - concerned authority did not comply with said direction - held, authority directed to comply with said direction without any further delay. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not.....order1. while deciding the writ petition, this court gave a specific direction that the petitioner and the candidates placed above her in the order of merit should be called upon within two weeks to present themselves before the principal. it was also stated therein that if the other candidates do not turn up, the petitioner shall be admitted.2. this direction was given as early as ist july, 1971. the learned government pleader, it would appear, has communicated this direction to the director of medical services. there was therefore, no want of knowledge of the direction that was to be implemented or of the time within which compliance was made imperative.3. notwithstanding this specific direction and the communication of the direction to the authority concerned, it is distressing to note.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. While deciding the Writ Petition, this Court gave a specific direction that the petitioner and the candidates placed above her in the order of merit should be called upon within two weeks to present themselves before the Principal. It was also stated therein that if the other candidates do not turn up, the petitioner shall be admitted.

2. This direction was given as early as Ist July, 1971. The learned Government Pleader, it would appear, has communicated this direction to the Director of Medical Services. There was therefore, no want of knowledge of the direction that was to be implemented or of the time within which compliance was made imperative.

3. Notwithstanding this specific direction and the communication of the direction to the authority concerned, it is distressing to note that there has been want of compliance with the direction. It is only in rare cases where this Court deems it necessary in the interests of justice, that a time limit is set for the implementation of the directions given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the need for compliance arose because the Writ Petition related to admission of a student to the Medical College. It is obvious that there should be no undue delay in such matters, because of the handicap to which the student will be subjected, as a result of the delayed implementation. The candidate's should know whether he or she stands a chance of admission and if the result is known, the student concerned might seek other avenues. It was because of the circumstances of this nature that this Court gave a clear direction that certain thing should be done by the authorities within two weeks.

4. It is extraordinary that instead of complying with the direction, the authority to whom a mandate is issued should ask for the production of a copy of the judgment. Where a specific time limit is set and a writ issued by this Court directing a public authority to defer the implementation in a perusal of the copy of the judgment. In this case it would appear that the authority concerned wanted perusal of the copy of the judgment as a pre-requisite for the implementation of the direction. Whether the authority has the copy of the judgment before it or not, the writ has to be obeyed and disobedience. will bring in its turn consequences which are well-known. A wilful or intentional non-compliance or postponement f compliance is nothing short of contempt of court and the consequences of such action or omission need not be overemphasized. It is necessary that the public authorities to whom writs are issued should bear this in mind.

5. In view of the regret expressed by the authorities concerned , no further action is taken and this Court expects that the warning administered in this case would have the desired effect, and there will be no repetition of non-compliance with the direction of this Court.

6. I am now assured by the learned Government Pleader that the direction will be implemented within a week. In view f this, no further directions are necessary.

Order accordingly.

***


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //