Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kondepati Giridhar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 March, 2020
Bench: J K Maheshwari, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
FULL BENCH
CHIEF JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI,
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
I.A.No.01 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2020
Kondepati Giridhar
S/o.late Sri K.Chinna Satyanarayana,
Aged about 53 yrs, Occ:Farmer,
r/o.8-73, Tallayapalem, Mandadam,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Through its Principal Secretary,
General Administration (SC.F) Department,
Secretariat Building at Velagapudi,
Guntur District, Amaravati
and 3 others. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu
Counsel for respondents : Advocate General.
I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P (PIL) No.179 of 2019
Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi,
Bearing Reg.No.283/2016, Having its office
At H.No.11-94, Tulluru, Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary
Sri Dhanekula Rama Rao S/o.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged 70 years, r/o.Nelapadu, Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh. .. Petitioner
Versus
The Government of India, rep.by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Jai Singh Marg,
Hanuman road area, Cannaught place,
New Delhi
and 8 others. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ambati Sudhakara Rao
Counsel for respondents : Advocate General.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and
WP(PIL)_179_2019
2
COMMON ORDER:
1) Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.(PIL).No.20 of 2020 and I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P.(PIL) No.179 of 2019. These two applications are in two different writ petitions filed by Kondepati Giridhar and Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi, claiming identical reliefs.
2) In I.A.No.01 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL). No.20 of 2020, petitioner claimed stay of implementation of G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) Department Dated 31.01.2020 issued for Relocation of office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries from Velagapudi to Kurnool, pending final disposal of the writ petition.
3) In I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL). No.179 of 2019, Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi prayed for a direction against respondent Nos.4 to 7 not to shift any of the infrastructure institution as contained in the notified master plan including S1 Government zone contained in Regulation No.405 of Zoning regulations as well as the head of the departments as contained in G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) department dated 31.01.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, by suspending the same, till final disposal of the writ petition.
4) In effect, by both I.As., interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) department dated 31.01.2020 during WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 3 pendency of the writ petitions is prayed for. Hence, it is appropriate to decide both the Interlocutory Applications by the common order.
5) W.P. (PIL).No.20 of 2020 is filed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) department dated 31.01.2020 and not to relocate the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and also offices of the Member (s) of Commissionerate of Inquirers from Velagapudi to Kurnool while declaring the G.O. as mala fide and frivolous.
6) The petitioners made serious allegations against the respondents and alleged fraudulent intention on the part of the Government to discontinue and shift the capital and that the same would impact lives and livelihood of the farmers who have surrendered their lands for the capital city of Amaravati and also stated that it causes financial burden on the state exchequer and further stated that the same is to execute political agenda of the people in power. It is also stated that consequent upon the bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 w.e.f. 02.06.2014, the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh is left with 'no capital city'. It is stated that the A.P Reorganisation Act, (hereinafter it be called as "Act") vide Section 5 has identified the then existing capital city Hyderabad as the Capital City for the State of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh shall have a new capital. According to Section 6 of the Act, the Central Government shall constitute an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding the new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh and to make appropriate recommendations.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 4 Consequently, the Central Government constituted a committee headed by K.C.Sivarama Krishnan on 28.03.2014, to make recommendations within 6 months from the date of the Act i.e. 31.08.2014. The Committee submitted its report on 28.07.2014 and suggested alternatives and guidelines without making any specific recommendations. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has constituted the advisory committee vide G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 20.07.2014 for identifying the capital. Having regard to the recommendations of the central government and the report of the Siva Rama Krishnan Committee, the advisory committee obtained opinions of experts of urban development, various public organisations and after considering all aspects of public welfare, accessibility to all parts of the state, advantages and disadvantages, identified and finalised the location of the Capital City; it was put on and passed by the unanimous resolution in the Andhra Pradesh State Assembly dated 03.09.2014 resolving to establish green field, self financing, liveable, environmentally sustainable, people's capital and identified location of the Capital between Vijayawada and Guntur Cities on the banks of river Krishna. Consequent to it, area ad-measuring 217 Sq.Kms was notified as the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Area (CA), which is meant for construction of Capital City Development Project and appointed a cabinet sub-committee to work out modalities to procure the land required for the project under Land Pooling Scheme vide G.O.Rt.No.3234 GA(Cabinet) Department, dated:24.09.2014.
7) The State enacted "The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (Act No.11 of 2014)" (for short WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 5 "CRDA Act") vide G.O.Ms.No:252, dated 30.12.2014, and declared the New Capital Area for the State of Andhra Pradesh. In furtherance to the said Act, the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (in short "APCRDA") is established for the purposes of Planning, Coordination, Execution, Supervision, Financing, Funding, for Promoting and Securing the planned development of the capital region. The capital city area was also declared for managing; supervising urban services in the new capital area and for the matters ancillary thereto and Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh shall be its Chairman. In accordance with the power conferred under section 3(1) of the CRDA Act, 2014 the Government of Andhra Pradesh has notified an area, admeasuring 217 Sq.km vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 254 & 141, dt.30.12.2014 and 09.06.2015 respectively as the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Area (CA).
8) In pursuance of the declaration vide G.O.Ms.Nos.254 and 141, dated.30.12.2014 and 09.06.2015, the capital is named as "AMARAVATI" and vide G.O.Ms.Nos.97 dated 23.04.2015, the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 43(5) of the Act has directed the APCRDA to undertake development Scheme in accordance with Chapter IX of the Act, through voluntary Land Pooling Scheme promising guaranteed return of developed reconstituted residential and commercial plot for the capital city as per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 30.12.2014.
9) The land pooling was completed in terms of Section 52 of the Act. Later, the State Government undertaken developmental activities in the capital region and constructed secretariat, assembly WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 6 and interim High Court Complex; the Secretariat and Assembly are functioning in the buildings so constructed as on date. The construction of residential quarters for the Judges and various other officers is in the midway, the quarters for M.L.As, I.A.S. officers and other officers were almost completed. Construction of APCRDA office is also in the midway investing huge amount on the construction work, laid roads, pipelines etc., to provide necessary infrastructure and amenities for the capital city. After the change of the Government during general election in the month of May, 2019, people representatives started discharging their functions from the same office, in the same Government complex, constructed in the notified government zone under Section 38 of the CRDA Act and till the end of May-2019.
10) The APCRDA has completed INTERIM GOVERNMENT COMPLEX with a floor area of 6.20 Lakh sqft and external infrastructure of 45.125 Ac with a total cost of Rs.526.52 Crores and the office space has been allotted to all the departments and accordingly the government of Andhra Pradesh has relocated all the Secretariat Departments, Heads of the Departments and the Autonomous organisations/Corporations along with their staff to the centrally located capital city Amaravati, vide G.O.Rt.No: 1909 General Administration (PU.A) Department dated 29.08.2017, consequently all the departments have been shifted to Amaravati and are functioning.
11) APCRDA has submitted a consolidated proposal to the Government vide Letter LT.No.CRDA-13021(36)/24/2017-SE- UTILITIES-APCRDA, and sought administrative sanction for WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 7 construction of Government housing of 3840 units comprising of 84,57,078 Sq.ft of super built area, constructed in 65.4 acres of Plot area and construction of VIP housing of 186 units with a total builtup area of 10,04,045 Sq.ft, at a total cost of 3306.8 Crores. Accordingly the Government of Andhra Pradesh has given administrative approval for construction of Government houses for a project cost of Rs.3,306 Crores and issued budgetary support including payment of principal and interest and permitted CRDA to execute the project vide G.O.Ms.No.65 MA & UD CRDA-2 Department dated 08.02.2018. The CRDA has commenced construction of the Group 1, 2, D and NGO housing and has physically completed nearly 70% of the construction and accordingly paid Rs.1,000 crores approximately to the concerned.
12) In the meantime, Assembly elections took place, in which other political party came into power, consequently all the developmental activities across the capital city are stalled by the state government malafidely with intent to shift the capital from Amaravati to other city.
13) After six months of formation of the new Government, Hon'ble the Chief Minister on 17.12.2019 on the floor of the A.P. Legislative Assembly has proposed three capitals for the state, inter alia stating that Vizag can be Executive Capital, Kurnool can be Judicial Capital and Amaravati can be Legislative Capital for the State retaliating from the act of the earlier Government.
14) The Government has constituted an expert committee vide G.O.RT.No.585 dated 13.09.2019 "to take a quick review of the developmental plans and suggest comprehensive development WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 8 strategy for all-round development of the state including Capital". Thereafter the Government has appointed a High-Power committee vide G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 29.12.2019 "to examine the recommendations of the said expert committee, on the concept of decentralised development. The report of the expert committee is not disclosed till date because the report is in a sealed cover submitted to Hon'ble the Chief Minister on 24.12.2019, and not placed in public domain.
15) In pursuance to the declaration made by Hon'ble the Chief Minister, two bills i.e. Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Repeal Bill, 2020, have been introduced in the Assembly and the same have been passed. Later, the bills were brought in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, where from it were sent to the select committee as the majority in the Council rejected the bill and resolved to constitute a Select committee to examine the bills. Thereafter the assembly resolved to abolish the Legislative Council as the proposed bills have not been able to withstand the division of the Capital in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, however the same is pending with the Central Government.
16) In furtherance to achieve their object the present Government started to shift the offices from Amaravathi, with an ulterior motive, and by issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 directed to shift the office of the Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries from Velagapudi, Amaravati to Kurnool.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 9
17) The specific grounds urged in the petition are that shifting of the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries from Velagapudi to Kurnool, without there being any administrative need or necessity. The said shifting is mala fide and with a view to achieve their ulterior object. In fact, the office is supposed to be located in the Government complex of Amaravati, which is centrally located in the State. The said shifting is motivated to split Heads of Department from Secretariat and re-locate at the place of their choice.
18) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that to achieve political agenda the ruling party has proposed the shifting without any genuine reason or necessity. It is urged, when any administrative decision had to be taken, it should be in the interest of the general public. But, in the facts, the decision taken is not in the public interest and at the peril of farmers, who have surrendered their lands in land pooling scheme.
19) It is further contended that the State has already made available necessary infrastructure spending huge amounts and functioning of various departments including the offices proposed to be shifted, however the proposed shifting of offices would cause financial loss to the state exchequer. It is urged, the said shifting of office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries from Velagapudi to Kurnool is politically motivated, mala fide and to deprive the farmers, who surrendered their large extents of land to the Government in the land pooling scheme. In the said facts, it is WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 10 prayed to suspend the said G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020, till final disposal of the writ petition.
20) Besides making several allegations referred above, Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi raised additional grounds that stalling of current plans and developmental activities in the notified capital city area, which include notified master plan as well as Zoning regulations is illegal. It is urged, in obedience to the statutory obligations, respondent No.7 (writ petition (PIL) No.179 of 2019) published master plan under Section 39 (6) of the Act, which is in force from the date of publication i.e., 23.02.2016, superseding all previous plans for the Capital City Area. The Master Plan so notified, specifies the zoning regulation. The regulation 405 deals the institutional zone and 405.1 speaks about S-1 Government Zone, which is a special zone for the institutions such as State Legislature, Secretariat, High Court, Heads of Department Offices, International Missions/Consulates and Government Complex related residential facilities with allied activities. All these Governmental Zone infrastructure buildings are part and parcel of master plans as prepared and notified under Sections 38 and 39 (6) of the CRDA Act.
21) It is relevant that even in the Repeal Act i.e., Bill No.2 of 2020, by a saving clause under Section 3, the entire chapter -IX of Land Pooling Scheme of the Principal Act as well as Land Pooling Scheme Rules 2015 have been saved. Vesting of land under Chapter IX and the possession which had taken shall continue to vest with the Government. All the Master plans, Zonal development plans including town planning schemes in respect of Capital region WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 11 governed by Principal Act are subsisting on the date of Repeal, however, it shall continue to be in force. The regulations, standing orders and agreements entered into under the Principal Act regarding allotment of lands were also saved. Assuming for a moment, the covenants contained in the Bill 2 of 2020 transforms into an Act, still the Government has to honour the obligations under Chapter XI of the Principal Act as well as the obligations under Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015. It is contended that proposed shifting of the offices is in contravention of Regulation 405 and Section 39 (6) of the CRDA Act.
22) The petitioners in both the petitions have filed additional affidavits raising additional grounds. The petitioner in W.P.(PIL).No.20 of 2020 raised a specific contention that the role of the department of vigilance is indivisible from the secretariat as the sole purpose of the, vigilance department is to aid and advise the government in achieving good and transparent governance combating corruption. As per set up, a Chief Vigilance Officer for each Department shall sit in the secretariat and act as a link between the Commission and the Secretary of the Government in the department or Head of the department, Government Undertaking/ Government Company / such of the institution as may be notified by the Government. The Chief Vigilance Officer is responsible for co-ordinating and guiding the activities of other Vigilance Officers attached in the subordinate offices and other organizations. The District collectors are the Chief Vigilance Officers for their respective jurisdiction.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 12
23) The G.O.Ms.No.421 General Administration (Sc.D) Dept., dated 03.08.1993 has been issued defining jurisdiction, powers etc, of the Vigilance Commission. U.O.Note No.1804/Spl.B3/99-1 Genl.Admn.(Spl.B) Dept., dated 22-12-1999 has been issued regarding scheme, functions and appointment of Vigilance Commission - appointment of Chief Vigilance Officers in the Departments of Secretariat and Vigilance Officers in subordinate offices. G.O.Ms.No.504 Genl. Admn.(V&E-A) Dept., dated 25.11.1997 has been issued depicting the role of the vigilance and enforcement department. On account of impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020, if the office of Vigilance Commission and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Member(s) of Commissioner of Inquiries is shifted from Velagapudi to some other place, it will defeat the very purpose of appointment of Vigilance Commissioner and Commissionerate of Enquiries, therefore requested to suspend the operation of the said G.O.
24) The petitioner in W.P.(PIL).No.179 of 2019 filed additional affidavit reiterating the other grounds and urged that the office proposed to be shifted would fall within the zoning regulations as per master plan and shifting of such office from Velagapudi to Kurnool will have its impact on the public and it is difficult to have control over the secretariat, however, the location of the offices in Interim Government Complex in Velagapudi is having statutory support. It is said in the proposed bills, the zonal regulations adopted by C.R.D.A. shall continue and hold good. Therefore, the proposed shifting from Velagapudi to Kurnool is illegal, and arbitrary.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 13
25) Respondent No.1 filed counter and additional counter. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (PIL).No.20 of 2020, respondent No.1 has not disputed the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020. It is specifically said that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has set up the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission in June, 1964 on the lines of the Central Vigilance Commission constituted by the Government of India. The Vigilance Commission comprises a Single Member designated as Vigilance Commissioner and may be appointed by Hon'ble the Governor. The Vigilance Commission has jurisdiction throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and its powers and functions are defined in the Scheme issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.421, G.A. (SC.D) Dept, dated 03.08.1993. It is also not disputed that the Vigilance Commission advises the Government to take up the measures to check/prevent and eradicate corruption in the public services. The Commission may deal any complaint of corruption, misconduct and lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanour of the public servants. The Vigilance Commission advises the Departments, Government Undertakings, Government Companies and such other Institutions as may be notified from time to time, in respect of all matters pertaining to Anti Corruption, and maintenance of integrity and ensures impartiality in the administration. All cases of misconduct of public servants involving lack of integrity having a vigilance angle, must be referred to the Vigilance Commission for advice. Explaining the staff pattern of the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission, said it consists of One Vigilance Commissioner and total posts in Vigilance Commission WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 14 is 47. Out of 47 posts, secretariat posts are 37 and remaining 10 posts are taken from other departments on deputation.
26) It is said Smt. Veena Ish, IAS (Retd.) has been appointed as Vigilance Commissioner for the State of Andhra Pradesh for a period of two (2) years with effect from the date of assumption of charge vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dt.03.01.2020 and vide letter, dated:03.02.2020, intimation has been received regarding assumption of charge, in Forenoon of 3rd February, 2020.
27) The Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) was established vide G.O.Rt.No.732, G.A.(SC.F) Dept., Dt.22-02-1989 with one Chairman and one Member for conducting departmental inquiries against the officers of State Government and the officers belonging to All India Services. The Commissionerate of Inquiries has been expanded with a full time Chairman and six (6) Members vide G.O.Rt.No.4394, G.A.(Spl.A) Department, Dt.16-8-1997. As per G.O.Rt.No.4394, the Members shall be drawn, each from Department of Irrigation and Roads & Buildings, one retired District Judge in addition to two serving I.A.S. Officers and one serving I.P.S. Officer. Subsequently, the orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.174, G.A. (SC.E) Dept., Dt:09.06.2003 based on the recommendations of the High Level Committee on Anti Corruption, however, the Commissionerate of Inquiries falls under the administrative control of A.P. Vigilance Commission. In G.O.Ms. No.336, G.A. (Spl.C) Dept., dated 19.10.2004, certain functions such as allocation of business among Members of Commissionerate of Inquiries, review of work of Members of Commissionerate of Inquiries etc., have been entrusted to the Vigilance Commission.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 15
28) As per G.O.Rt.No.2748, General Administration (SC.F) Department, dated 05.12.2019, Sri T.A. Tripathi, IPS(RR:1987) was posted as Member, Commissionerate of Inquiries. Vide letter, dated 27.12.2019, it was informed that he has assumed charge of the Commissioner of Inquiries in forenoon of 26.12.2019. It is requested by him the accommodation provided in the Secretariat chamber No.275A is not suitable for discharging the duties as Commissioner of Inquiries. The location of his Chamber/Space available therein is inappropriate and he requested to provide a Chamber meant for Commissioner of Inquiries as in the past. He also requested that if suitable accommodation is not available in Secretariat, he may be permitted to take private accommodation on rent for the purpose of office.
29) It is further contended that shifting of Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquires from Interim Government Complex (for short "IGC"), Velagapudi to other place is not an instant decision taken by the Government. It is said that the Government is facing shortage of office space from the past two years. However, in the month of September, 2019, a proposal was moved to relocate certain offices not directly related to functioning of Secretariat Administration to the place other than IGC, Velagapudi. It is also said the new Vigilance Commissioner has also expressed displeasure for not affording adequate accommodation to the Commission in IGC, Velagapudi, producing the note file also.
30) It is specifically contended that in IGC at Velagapudi, there are 6 buildings consist of 1+1 floors. Building No.6 is exclusively earmarked for A.P. State Legislature. The remaining (05) buildings WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 16 of are meant for Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office, Ministers offices, departments of Secretariat, Advisors Offices, Chairman's Offices, AIS Offices and staff of departments. The 1st floor of the building No.1 is exclusively meant for Cabinet Hall, Conference Hall, RTGS, Chief Secretary's Office, and Chief Minister's Office. Ground floor of Building No.3 is completely meant for common utilities viz., Banks, Post Office, Mee-seva Centre, Railway and RTC reservation counters, Secretariat Library, Govt. of India's National Informatics Centre, Dispensary, Child care center and Canteen for employees and visiting public. Therefore, urged, space available in the IGC is not sufficient to provide accommodation to the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries. The office of Vigilance Commissioner and office of Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries require 8000+ sq.ft. and furnished the details of the required office space in the counter affidavit itself. It is also contended that for want of sufficient space, the Government took a decision for shifting of office to some other place. Therefore, the same cannot be faulted attributing mala fides.
31) Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in "The Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta1" and "J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2" to contend that the State have jurisdiction to exercise its power to shift its offices. This view is also supported by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in "C.S.Kuppuraj v. the 1 (2001) 7 SCALE 158 2 AIR 1988 SC 1681 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 17 State of Tamil Nadu3". On the strength of these judgments, request is made to dismiss the interlocutory applications.
32) Respondents also filed additional counter affidavit in W.P. (PIL).No.20 of 2020 giving details of space available in the IGC and requirement of additional space, staff pattern; their pay and allowances in two tables. It is further contended that the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Commissionerate of Inquiries are interconnected, but totally unconnected with General Administration Department. As the AP Vigilance Commission is a separate entity and not an integral part of the General Administration Department as per G.O.Ms. No.470, GA (SC,D) Department, dated 02.09.1983, (Annexure-IV). It is submitted that the Commissioner of Inquiries was earlier under the control of the General Administration Department, but now the same has brought under the administrative control of the Vigilance Commission vide G.O. Ms. No, 174 G.A.(SC.E) Dept, dated 09-06-2003. There are three Commissioner(s) of Inquiries functioning presently, namely (1) Sri J.Satyanaryana, IPS (Retd), (2) Sri T.A. Tripathy IPS and (3) Sri R.P. Sisodia, IAS (FAC). Total cadre strength of Commissionerate of Inquires is 16, therefore, space available in the IGC is not sufficient, however they may be set up in a different place subject to administrative decision of the Government, thus requested to dismiss the interlocutory applications.
33) In I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P.(PIL).No.179 of 2019 no counter is filed by the respondents.
3 (2004) 2 LW 554 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 18
34) Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(PIL). No.20 of 2020 mainly contended that when the office of Vigilance Commissioner is intimately connected to the functions of the General Administration Department, in the event of its shifting to Kurnool, the Vigilance Commissioner will lose his control over the staff, the possibility to advise the Vigilance Officer of each section in the secretariat will lost and there will be rampant increase in corrupt activities among the employees of secretariat, however the proposal made vide G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 would impede or defeat the very purpose of establishing Office of Vigilance Commissioner. It is further contended that the political decision under the guise of administrative decision cannot be permitted to be perpetrated and the administrative actions must require to be just, fair and reasonable and cannot be resorted to pursue political interest under the guise of administrative orders, and eventually requested to suspend the impugned G.O. during pendency of the main writ petition.
35) Similarly, Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner in I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL).No.179 of 2019 while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition, mainly contended that the offices of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and the Members of Commissioner of Inquiries shall be established within Zone S1 meant for Government Offices in the capital city area of Amaravati based upon statutory provisions. That apart from the two bills placed before the Assembly though passed, they were not finalized in view of the opinion expressed by the Legislative Council to refer those two bills to select WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 19 committee; even under the two bills, the master plans are saved,, and the shifting of these two offices is contrary to the provisions of CRDA Act and the proposed bill to repeal the CRDA Act. It is not out of place to say, that if the space is not sufficient at Velagapudi, it cannot be located at far-off place to the present capital zone area; It is said that since the present political party in power failed to succeed in their attempt to transform the two bills into Act on account of opposition in Legislative Council, they could not achieve their object of shifting of offices to different places by establishing three capitals, but indirectly they intend to achieve their object by shifting the offices. As per the material on record, respondents did not address any letters to any of the District Collectors to find out the availability of the office space, without incurring any expenditure; that such conduct is indicative of existence of mala fides on the part of the State executive to shift the office to the far- off place i.e. Kurnool, which is almost 320 kms away from the capital; that when the decision of the State or its instrumentalities though administrative in nature, if it is tainted by mala fides and without observation fair procedure, the Courts certainly can interfere with such decisions, exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
36) Learned Advocate General for the State vehemently supported the action of the State Government by his emphatic and impregnable argument relying the judgments of the Apex Court in "The Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta"
and "J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 20 "C.S.Kuppuraj v. the State of Tamil Nadu" (referred supra). His main endeavour is that when the space in IGC is not sufficient, the State is bound to provide alternative accommodation to the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries for their smooth function and discharge the official duties.
The note placed on record would show how the process is commenced. It is also argued that in any view of the matter, when the Government intends to shift its office on administrative grounds, the Court cannot interfere with the administrative decision taken by the State and its instrumentalities for shifting of the offices, merely because a letter was not addressed to the District Collector, Kurnool to identify suitable building at Kurnool or to relocate the office of the Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries. In the said facts, mala fide cannot be attributed to the State, in fact it is for the State to take appropriate decision to provide office space to the said offices by incurring minimum expenditure. It is also contended that these two offices are not connected with General Administration Department and having its independent entity, though the duties of the Vigilance Commissioner is advisory in nature. However, relocation of the offices as proposed in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 may be stayed or suspended by this Court since it is purely administrative decision, therefore requested to dismiss the Interlocutory Applications.
37) On analysis of the specific pleas and contentions, the point that arises for consideration in both the interlocutory applications is;
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and
WP(PIL)_179_2019
21
"Whether administrative decision of the
Government to shift the office of Vigilance
Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and its Members from interim Government complex, Velagapudi to Kurnool, warrants interference on account of alleged mala fide or otherwise it is beyond the scope to exercise the jurisdiction by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant stay of G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020?"
38) The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is three-fold. Firstly, the Vigilance Commission is a part of General Administration Department in the Secretariat, established to overcome corruption in various departments of the State Government, having jurisdiction throughout the State. Apart from the overall jurisdiction, each Chief Vigilance Officer in the departments of secretariat has to work in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and report to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and if, for any reason, the Vigilance Commission is shifted to Kurnool, it would frustrate the very purpose of establishing the Vigilance Commission. He relied on G.O.Ms.No.421 General Administration (SC.D) Department dated 03.08.1993, U.O.Note No.1804/Spl.B3/99-1 General Administration (Spl.B) Department, dated 22.12.1999 and another G.O.Ms.No.504 General Administration (V&E-A) Department dated 25.11.1997.
G.O.Ms.No.421 dated 03.08.1993 (referred above) deals with constitution of Vigilance Commission, its jurisdiction and powers of the Commission etc. The Vigilance Commissioner is the head of the State having jurisdiction and powers in respect of the matters to WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 22 which the executive power of the State extends. The powers and functions of the Vigilance Commission are as follows:
(i) To cause an enquiry into any transaction in which a public servant including a member of an All-India Service is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner.
(ii) To cause an enquiry or an investigation to be made into:
a. Any complaint that a public servant had exercised or refrained from exercising his powers for improper or corrupt purposes; b. Any complaint of corruption, misconduct or lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanor on the part of a public servant.
Thus, the Vigilance Commission is having jurisdiction throughout the State to enquire into the subjects referred above.
39) As per U.O.Note No.1804 (referred above), one Chief Vigilance Officer shall be appointed for each Secretariat Department and Vigilance Officers in all subordinate and attached offices and in all Government Undertakings/Government companies and such of the institutions as may be notified by the Government from time to time. In view of both G.O.Ms.No.421 dated 03.08.1993 and U.O.Note No.1804 (referred above) it is said there is a direct connection between the General Administration Department and Vigilance Commission.
40) This contention is refuted by Advocate General for the State in his counter specifically contending that the G.O.Ms.No.421 dated 03.08.1993 is a parent G.O. defining the jurisdiction and powers of the Vigilance Commission, even according to the said G.O., there is WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 23 no direct or indirect connection between two departments as contended by the counsel for the petitioners.
41) As per the above said arguments, the petitioners and respondent both are relying on G.O.Ms.No.421 dated 03.08.1993. It appears from the material available on record, that there is a direct connection between two departments i.e. General Administration Department and Vigilance Commission.
42) In view of Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 6 in G.O.Ms.No.421 General Administration (SC.D) Department dated 03.08.1993 in Circular No.243, in cases referred to in paragraph (iv)(b)(1) and also in all other cases where the Anti-Corruption Bureau has made enquires including suo-moto enquiries, the preliminary report of the enquiry will be forwarded by the Anti-Corruption Bureau to the Vigilance Commission. A copy may be sent by the Bureau to the General Administration (SC.F) Department and the concerned Department/Government Undertaking/Government Company and such other institution as may be notified by the Government from time to time. The Vigilance Commission will consider whether or not a regular enquiry may be called for. At the same time, Sub-Clauses
(xiv), (xv) & (xvi) of Clause 6 deal with jurisdiction of Vigilance Commission and the Commission may collect such statistics and other information as may be necessary, obtain information about action taken on its recommendation and finally the Commission will submit an annual report to the Government in the General Administration (SC.D) Department about its activities, drawing particular attention to any recommendations made by it, which had not been accepted and acted upon and the report together with a WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 24 memorandum explaining the reasons for non acceptance of any recommendations of the Commission will be laid by the General Administration Department before the State Legislature.
43) Similarly, as per Clause 9 of G.O.Ms.No.421 General Administration (SC.D) Department dated 03.08.1993, the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Vigilance Officers besides being the link between the Commission and the departments should be the special assistants to the Secretary to the Government, in the department or head of the Government undertaking/Government Company/such of the institution as may be notified by the Government from time to time, in combating corruption, misconduct and malpractices in the department/Government undertaking/ Government Company/ such of the Institution as may be notified by the Government. The Chief Vigilance Officer will be responsible for co-ordinating and guiding the activities and other organization for which his department is responsible to the Legislature.
44) U.O.Note No.1804/Spl.B3/99-1 Genl.Admn.(Spl.B) Dept. dated 22.12.1999 deals with scheme of Vigilance Commission. According to Clause 4, the Vigilance Commissioner will assess the work of the Chief Vigilance Officers and the assessment will be recorded in the character roll of the said officers according to the procedure prescribed by the Government from time to time. All the above aspects cumulatively indicate that there is a direct connection between Vigilance Commission and General Administration Department and the Vigilance Commission is an adjunct of General Administration Department indirectly.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 25
45) In any view of the matter, it is evident that the very purpose of constituting Vigilance Commission is to enquire into the allegations made against any of the officers of the State including All-India Service officers in vigilance angle. As on today, entire State machinery is located in Velagapudi and surrounding areas of Velagapudi at Amaravati. Only these two offices i.e. Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries are proposed to be shifted to Kurnool on the ground of lack of office space in Interim Government Complex at Velagapudi. If these two offices are shifted to Kurnool, which is approximately 350 kms away to the present Interim Government Complex, Velagapudi, it would be difficult to the Vigilance Commission to monitor the entire vigilance matters effectively within financial constraints, thereby such shifting would prima facie impede or defeat the very purpose of constituting vigilance commission. Even according to the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, one Chief Vigilance Officer shall be appointed for each Secretariat Department and Vigilance Officers in all subordinate and attached offices and in all Government Undertakings/Government companies and such of the institutions as may be notified by the Government from time to time, and each Chief Vigilance Officer in the departments of secretariat has to work in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and report to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. If the Chief Vigilance Officers are required to submit any report or consult the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, they might have to undertake journey, covering a distance of 350 Kms and it would not only burden to the State exchequer but also employees, who have to travel such a long distance and in the process they will lose not less than two working WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 26 days. Therefore, on account of proposed shifting of these offices, the Vigilance administration would be seriously prejudiced and crippled the department will have no check in vigilance angle. Hence, the very purpose of establishment of Vigilance Commission becomes otiose on account of proposed shifting, and it may lead to increase the corruption activities, otherwise the departments remain unchecked, prejudicing the public interest.
46) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as on today the capital is at Velagapud, Amaravati and proposal was made by the State by introducing two bills i.e. Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Repeal Bill, 2020. As per Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020, the State Government shall endeavour to locate all the Institutions of the State, the State Department(s) and the instrumentalities of the State in the three Capital(s) under Section 7. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the State shall, as far as practicable, seek to ensure the following:
(i) The seat of Legislature shall be at the Legislative Capital of Amaravathi;
(ii) The Raj Bhawan, Secretariat and Offices of the Heads of the Departments of Government shall be located at the Executive Capital of Visakapatnam;
(iii) The Seat of all State Judicial Institutions established under State legislations, shall, as far as WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 27 practicable, be located in the Judicial Capital of Kurnool;
(iv) The Government shall initiate steps to seek relocation of the Principal Seat of High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the Judicial Capital of Kurnool and for constitution of bench(es) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the Government from locating any Institution or Department(s) of Government in any Seat of Administration that may be at variance with the above or in any area other than the Seats of Authority in any special circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.
47) The said two bills were introduced and passed in the Legislative Assembly and when they were introduced in the Legislative Council, they did not transform into Acts and proposed to refer the said bills to the select committee, and till date the said two bills did not transform into Acts. Obviously, having failed to achieve their object by introducing the enactment for shifting of various departments and relocation of different departments to various places based on the principle of inclusive development of all regions dividing the State into Zones, the respondents made a proposal to achieve their object indirectly by issuing impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020, on the direct note sheet of the Chief Minister.
48) Learned Advocate General placed on record office note for allotment of space to several departments including details of requirements. Initially, the said note was placed before the concerned by Assistant Section Officer on 04.09.2019 and WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 28 circulated to various officers in the department till 01.11.2019, concluding that there is no office space in the building to locate Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission, Pay Revision Commission and other departments, though Vigilance Commissioner was appointed by G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 03.01.2020 and assumed charge on 03.02.2020. Hence, the file was returned to G.A. (OM-II) Department for information. As such, office space was not allotted to Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission and some other offices and the file was sent back to G.A.(OM-II) Department on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, the file was moved from the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office. It was brought to the notice of Hon'ble Chief Minister that APIIC building has lot of vacant office space. Hon'ble Chief Minister desires that Secretary, Services (GAD) may take up his issue with MD, APIIC and hire the building. The file was moved for some time and later, it was brought on record that allocation of office space in APIIC Towers, IT Park, Mangalagiri and requests of certain departments for allocation on lease free basis and submission of detailed note to APIIC Board for deliberations and decision. The Board discussed and carefully considered the matter and resolved as follows:
"With the exception of NCLT, a Central Government organization, all other entities proposed for allotment of space are State Government entities, therefore the Board resolves to provide "rent free" accommodation on "as is where is" basis in the form of warm shell on generous consideration as it involves foregoing Rs.8.16 crore revenue per annum to APIIC.
However, all the tenants shall pay their own utility bills and proportional expenditure from their own budgets on the general maintenance of the building besides making interior fitouts/decoration. APIIC shall not incur further expenditure on this account, as the building already is provided on rent free WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 29 basis.
Allotment to the following departments are approved. Accordingly, the following allocations are approved:
Sl. Floor No. Total Built up Proposed for Built up No space area in space in Sq.ft Sq.Ft.
1 8th Floor 17,791
CCLA 35,582
2 7th Floor 17,791
3 6th Floor 17,791 Arogyasree Trust
4 5th Floor 17,791 & 104/108 Call 35,582
Centre
5 4th Floor 17,791 APEDB 9766
6 3rd Floor 17,791 Commissioner of 25,816
Industries (4th
Floor part and
3rd floor)
7 2nd floor 17,791 NCLT (2nd floor 9,886.80
part)
Judicial 7,904.20
Commission of
Tenders (2nd
floor) part)
8 1st floor part 23,456 APERC 11,728
9 1st floor part Finance 11,728
Department,
Government of
A.P. (1 st floor
part)
Built up 1,47,993 1,47,993
space for
allocation
49) The Board further resolved that any changes to the above in the allotment of space in APIIC Towers shall be done by the GAD of Government of Andhra Pradesh and any alterations fit outs shall be done under the supervision of the engineers from the TR & B Department who have expertise in the maintenance of the Government Buildings. Later, they conveniently allotted 900 Sq. feet to the advisors of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Further, the said number of advisors is increased to 40 and allotted 1800 Sq.feet, instead of allotting the same to the office of Chief Vigilance WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 30 Commissioner and Commissionerate of Enquiries. Finally, the State expressed their inability to provide office space to the Chief Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Enquiries, conveniently allotting office space to various other offices.
50) Thereupon, Sri G.Veerapandian, Collector, Kurnool District addressed a letter in Lr.No.CC/199/2019 dated 23.12.2019 to the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, General Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi informing that office space of 46,000 sq.feet approximately, and 39 rooms are found for immediate occupation of any Government Office in Kurnool District without incurring any expenditure to the Statement Government. Surprisingly, no letter was addressed by the Secretary or any officers of the Secretariat, requesting the District Collector, Kurnool to identify the office space at Kurnool. Strangely, in the reference of the letter of the Collector, Kurnool District, dated 23.12.2019, it is mentioned as "arising". Thus, even without any letter from the State, the Collector, Kurnool District, for the reasons best known to him, allegedly based on discussion, identified the office space for location of different offices. If really, no space is available within the Interim Government Complex, nothing prevented the Government to find out the office space either in Guntur, Vijayawada or at Eluru within the radius of 50 to 100 kms to avoid administrative inconvenience and to achieve the real object of establishing the Vigilance Commission and other department. Instead of searching for office space within the radius of 50 to 100 kms, it appears that the Collector, Kurnool even without being asked by anybody addressed a letter. Conveniently, respondents WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 31 accepted the same, thereupon the impugned G.O. was issued.
51) As the respondents failed to succeed in their attempt to shift the offices as mentioned in Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020, they obviously invented a short-cut method to achieve their object indirectly on the pretext of non-availability of office space.
52) Finally, Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL).No.20 of 2020 contended that the decision of the State, proposing to shift the offices of Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries is mala fide and intended to achieve their object indirectly either due to political reasons or otherwise, and when the decision of the executive of the State is tainted with mala fide, the Court can interfere with such administrative decision even for locating offices at a particular place since it defeats the very object of establishing the office of Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries.
53) It is known, the Courts normally, do not interfere with political and administrative decisions of the Government while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To apprise the said contention, learned Advocate General attempted to take shelter under the penumbra of administrative convenience, and contended that when the State took an administrative decision to locate the office at a particular place, the Court cannot interfere with such decision. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court in "J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 32 Pradesh" (referred above) and the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in "C.S.Kuppuraj v. the State of Tamil Nadu" (referred above). On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned Advocate General submitted that when the State has taken a decision to locate the office at a particular place, the Court cannot interfere with such decision while exercising power of judicial review. In the wake of said submission the referred judgment is required to be analyzed.
54) In "J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred above), Mandal Headquarters are proposed to be functioned at a particular place, by locating the headquarters in a different place. The said decision went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the High Court, the writ petition was allowed, quashing the notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines, that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the interference by the High Court is impermissible and the location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities, like, the gram panchayats and the general public. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 33 particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions and not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners therein.
55) Similarly, in "C.S.Kuppuraj v. the State of Tamil Nadu"
(referred above) the Division Bench of Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Government for locating the secretariat of Tamilnadu State.
56) Undoubtedly, the principle laid down in the above judgment is that the location of offices of State is within the jurisdiction of the State Executive. But, it is to be noted that In the facts of the above judgment, no mala fides were attributed, and the decision was not taken due to political motivation or tainted with mala fides. In case of the said contingencies, the Court can interfere with executive decisions. The said principles have been reiterated by various judgments. In the case of "People's Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India4" the Apex Court candidly held that the Court should not shirk from its duty of performing its function merely because it has political thicket. Thus, the law permits the interference of this Court if the decision taken by the Executive has political thicket.
57) Similarly, the Apex Court time and again held that where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy, the Court should not ordinarily interfere but this does not mean that the courts have 4 (2003) 4 SCC 399 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 34 to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and whether the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, on the basis of the material on record (vide:
Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation5)
58) It is true that the judicial review of the policy, evolved by the government, is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. In matters, affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the Court would leave the matters for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless, the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws, arbitrary, irrational and in abuse of the power, the Court ought not interfere with such matters. (Vide:
Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India6) When the decision taken by the Executive is tainted by mala fide or politically motivated, the Court can interfere with such administrative decisions.
59) In "Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others7", noticing the jurisdictional limitations to analyse and fault a policy, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the court cannot strike down a G.O., or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction and that the life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a virtue and what 5 (2001) 8 SCC 491 6 (2003) 4 SCC 289 7 [1980]1SCR1026 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 35 is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factor fouls.
60) At this stage, it would also be prudent to recall the following observations of Lord Justice Lawton in Laker Airways, (1977 (2) WLR 234 at 267), while considering the parameters of judicial review in matters involving policy decisions of the executive:
"In the United Kingdom aviation policy is determined by ministers within the legal framework set out by Parliament. Judges have nothing to do with either policy making or the carrying out of policy. Their function is to decide whether a minister has acted within the powers given him by statute or the common law. If he is declared by a court, after due process of law, to have acted outside his powers, he must stop doing what he has done until such time as Parliament gives him the powers he wants. In a case such as this I regard myself as a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle when the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in it nor tell the players how to play."
61) In "M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P.8" the Apex Court observed that the executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State and unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the State i.e. legislature, 8 1997(7) SCC 592 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 36 executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasized. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of the judiciary in out-stepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields. The same view was been taken by the Apex Court in "Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Delhi Administration and Others9" "Bhavesh D. Parish and Others v. Union of India and Another10", "Netai Bag and Other v. State of West Bengal and Others11" Thus, the catena of decisions (referred above) directly cautioned the Courts not to interfere in the policy decisions of the State unless they are tainted by mala fide and contrary to the Statute.
62) In "Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co.12"
Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court observed:
"Congress was confronted with the formulation of policy peculiarly within its wide swath of discretion. It would be a singular intrusion of the judiciary into the legislative process to extrapolate, restrictions upon the formulation of such an economic policy from those deeply rooted notions of justice which the Due Process Clause expresses."
63) The Hon'ble Apex Court in "M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. Sir 9 (2001) 3 SCC 635 10 (2000) 5 SCC 471 11 (2000) 8 SCC 262 12 (1949) 338 US 604 (617) WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 37 Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and Others13" held that the judiciary should never interfere with administrative decisions. However, such interference should be only within narrow limits e.g. when there is clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provision, or there is arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense. It is the administrators and legislators who are entitled to frame policies and take such administrative decisions as they think necessary in the public interest. The Court should not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions, unless clearly illegal. At this stage, it would be relevant to discuss about the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness, a standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority's decision. A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223).
64) Keeping in view, the law declared by various Courts in mind, this Court has to discuss whether the decision taken by the State is irrational, tainted with any mala fides or acted arbitrarily in issuing impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 for shifting of Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries from Velagapudi to Kurnool is just and proper.
65) In I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL).No.179 of 2019, the core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by exercising power under Sections 38 and 39 of the C.R.D.A.Act certain zones were notified and SI Zone is meant for establishment 13 (2011) 1 SCC 640 WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 38 of offices. Even the Master plan is also saved by Section 3 (i) of the Bill to Repeal the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. Section 39 of the C.R.D.A. Act deals with process of approval of plans, after preparation of plan under Section 38, the Authority shall notify the same in such form and manner as may be prescribed along with a notice in the prescribed manner, inviting objections or suggestions from any person or body giving a time period of 30 days. The State notified Master plan, fixing various zones. Based on Zoning regulations, issued in February, 2016, Amaravati capital city is divided into various zones like parks, open spaces, institutional Zone, industrial zone and commercial zone etc. Regulation 405 deals with Institutional Zone. Regulation 405.1 deals with S1 Government Zone. S1 Zoning district is a special zone for institutions such as Judicature, Heads of Department offices, Raj Bhawan, Head of Department office, Government of India offices, International missions/Consulates and Government Complex related residential facilities with other allied activities. In order to enhance the strategic location and symbolic values of these projects, Urban Design Proposals shall be prepared addressing the character of publc spaces as well as functions of the government institutions, etc.
66) Now, the two offices i.e. Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries proposed to be shifted are part and parcel of Heads of Department Offices as per Zoning regulation 405.1-S1 Government Zone. When such state level establishment has to be established as per Regulation 405.1, proposal to shift those offices to Kurnool in the guise of lack of office space in IGC is, WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 39 prima facie, contrary to Section 39 of CRDA Act. Section 39 (6) of CRDA Act specifically stipulates that the sanction accorded by the Authority shall be notified in the official Gazette and the plans shall come into force form the date of publication. These Master plans etc., are saved under Section 3 (i) of the proposed bill to repeal the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. As per Section 3 (i) of the said bill, all the master plans, zonal development plans including town planning schemes in respect of the capital region governed by the Principal Act, and are subsisting as on the date of the repeal, shall continue to be in force for the purposes of special land use, unless superseded or revised under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 by AMRDA.
67) Undisputedly, all the master plans, zonal development plans including town planning schemes in respect of the capital region governed by the CRDA Act are saved, even, as per the proposed Act. If, for any reason, the Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries, in pursuance of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.202, are shifted to Kurnool, it is totally contrary to the spirit of Section 39 of the CRDA Act, 2014 and Section 3 (i) of the proposed Act, introduced as a bill in the Legislative Assembly. Thus, the action of the respondents is contrary to Section 39 of the CRDA Act and Section 3 (i) of the proposed bill to repeal the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014.
68) It is to observe that when the decision taken by the Executive Authority is contrary to the Statute, such decision can be interfered by this Court as discussed earlier. Hence, we find prima facie WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 40 violation of statutory provisions, while issuing G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020. In addition, the said G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 has been issued only to achieve their object indirectly since the two bills i.e. Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Repeal Bill, 2020 are not yet finalised in the Legislative Council.
69) The only excuse put forth by the learned Advocate General is that the space available in Velagapudi interim complex is not sufficient, hence the respondents have proposed to shift the Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries to Kurnool, which is approximately 350 kms away from the Interim Government Complex. More curiously, the State did not even address a letter to the District Collector, Kurnool, but he himself addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, General Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi on his own accord or at the instance of some other person, but made a mention that the same preceded by discussion. Whether the discussion was with the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister or any other person relating to this policy decision or otherwise is not clear and the reference column is silent.
70) As observed, in the preceding paragraphs that the State, having failed in its attempt to pass enactment repealing the C.R.D.A.Act and Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020, invented a cause of lack of sufficient space in the IGC, without making the attempt to secure any alternative premises within the radius of 50 to 100 kms to the IGC, Velagapudi.
WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 41 By oral discussion with the District Collector, Kurnool, and by obtaining information issued the impugned G.O. based upon the order passed by the Chief Minister on note sheet proposing to shift the Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries from Velagapudi to Kurnool. This reflects, the motive and intention of the State to shift the said offices in consonance with Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of all Regions Bill, 2020 though the said bill was not passed in the Legislative Council, still it is pending.
71) Apart from that, in the event of shifting of those offices to Kurnool, it would defeat the very purpose of its establishment and the same not only causes inconvenience to the employees, who are facing enquiries but also to the witnesses to be examined in the enquires, besides incurring huge expenditure and loss of working days, thereby such establishment would cause dent to the general administration in the State. The State did not consider the ill-consequences that flow from such proposal to shift those offices to Kurnool, while issuing G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020. Such action of the respondents is nothing but arbitrary and tainted by mala fide due to different reasons, which we have observed in preceding paragraphs.
72) If the said facts test of Wednesbury unreasonableness is applied for, the action of the State is prima facie unreasonable, and at the peril of the employees facing enquiries before the Vigilance Commissioner and Commissionerate of Enquiries and the respondents also failed to take into consideration the purport for WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 42 which it is established and the decision of the State appears to have been taken to water down the very purpose of its establishment.
73) Therefore, we find, prima facie, that the decision taken by the authorities vide G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 is tainted by mala fide and the same impedes the purpose of constitution of Vigilance Commission and Commissionerate of Inquiries. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there is any amount of prima facie arbitrariness, unreasonableness in the action of the respondents. Consequently, we find that it is a fit case to suspend the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 since there is a prima facie case to go for hearing in the main petition and the balance of convenience is tilting towards the petitioners and against the State.
74) Though the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in "J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in "C.S.Kuppuraj v. the State of Tamil Nadu"
(referred supra), the principle laid down in the above judgment would not render any assistance to the respondents having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand.
75) In the above two cases, no mala fides were attributed to the State authorities and the Government Orders were not questioned on the basis of irrationality or violation of statutory provisions, but they were questioned on the ground of violation of guidelines, which did not have any statutory force. But in the present facts of the case, mala fides are attributed to the executive authorities of the WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 43 State while taking decision to shift the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and also offices of the Member(s) Commissioner of Inquiries and this view is supported by sufficient material prima facie. Apart from that a statutory violation of Section 39 of the CRDA Act is also pointed out and Master plan is also saved by Section 3 (i) of the Bill to Repeal the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014, which is pending at the stage of bill before the Legislative Council. The allegations about mala fides and irrationality in the decision taken by the Executive authorities of the State are also substantiated prima facie by placing material on record. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 came to be issued in clear violation of statutory provision i.e. Section 39 of the CRDA Act, prima facie.
76) In view of our foregoing discussion, the act of the Executive Authority of the State in issuing G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) Department dated 31.01.2020 proposing to shift the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and also offices of the Member (s) Commissioner of Inquiries from Interim Government Complex, Velagapudi to Kurnool is not only prima facie mala fide, unreasonable and irrational, but also contrary to Section 39 of the CRDA Act. Hence, we find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, balance of convenience is also tilting in their favour, hence it is a fit case to suspend G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 as the said order came to be issued contrary to the Statute and is WP(PIL)_20_2020 and WP(PIL)_179_2019 44 tainted by mala fides. Accordingly, the question as posed is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
77) In the result, I.A.No.01 of 2020 in WP (PIL) No.20 of 2020 and I.A.No.08 of 2020 in W.P. (PIL) No.179 of 2019 are allowed, suspending G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) department dated 31.01.2020 during pendency of the writ petitions.
No costs.
_____________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI _________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI __________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dt:20.03.2020 KSP/GM