Skip to content


D. Subba Rao Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3144 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC94; (1975)4SCC808; 1974(6)LC143(SC)
AppellantD. Subba Rao
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....provisionally maintained and opportunity given to appellant to make his representation before state government - appellant provided opportunity to persue relevant records - representation made by appellant considered afresh by state government - vice president would continue in post of president. - [ a.k. sarkar,; j.c. shah,; k.c. das gupta,; k. subba rao,; k.n. wanchoo, jj.] the appellants were detained under r. 30(l) of the defence of india rules made by the central government under s. 3 of the defence of india ordinance, 1962. they applied to the punjab and bombay high courts under s. 491(1)(b) of the code of criminal procedure and their case was that ss. 3(2)(15)(i) and 40 of the defence of india act, 1962, and r. 30(1)(b) of the defence of india rules, which were continued..........impugned will be provisionally maintained, hut the appellant will be given an opportunity by the state government to make his representation against the charges set out in the notice dated the 26th september, 1972, within six weeks from today. the appellant will be given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records within three weeks from today. the representation made by the appellant will be considered afresh by the state government and on such a consideration, it will pass an order affirming, modifying or cancelling the order dated the 6th january, 1973.4. till the second order is passed, status quo will continue, in the sense that the vice-president, who is now discharging the functions of the president will continue to do so and no fresh by-election will be held. the second order.....
Judgment:

Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The appellant was elected as the president of the panchyat samithi of Bapatla on July 18, 1970. The Government for reasons set out in its communication, issued a show-cause notice dated the 26th September, 1972 asking the president to submit an explanation within 21 days of the receipt of that notice why he should not be removed. Thereafter, various communications and other proceedings took place with which we are not concerned in the light of the final order that we are passing. We have suggested a course to the parties, which counsel fairly agreed, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

2. The appellant has contended that the order removing him from his office as the president was passed without hearing him and the respondent State has contested his ground taking up the stand that an opportunity has been afforded but has not been taken advantage of. We are not going into the merits of the matter, because we feel that the ends of justice would be served by the following direction:-

3. The order impugned will be provisionally maintained, hut the appellant will be given an opportunity by the State Government to make his representation against the charges set out in the notice dated the 26th September, 1972, within six weeks from today. The appellant will be given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records within three weeks from today. The representation made by the appellant will be considered afresh by the State Government and on such a consideration, it will pass an order affirming, modifying or cancelling the order dated the 6th January, 1973.

4. Till the second order is passed, status quo will continue, in the sense that the vice-president, who is now discharging the functions of the president will continue to do so and no fresh by-election will be held. The second order that the State Government passes will not preclude the seeking of remedies under the law, if any.

5. The appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.


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