State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs National Council for the Church and Social Action, Kurnool

M.H.S. Ansari, J.—The writ petitioner-respondent is a Society which started Teachers Training Institute and for that purpose made an application to the Government for grant of permission. By orders dated 20-11-1983, the Government refused the permission applied for on the plea that it had taken a policy decision not to permit private Managements to open Teachers Training Institutes. The respondent-writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 10804 of 1983 which was eventually allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by Orders dated 27-2-1984 inter alia with the following directions :

That the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh refusing permission on the ground mentioned therein to the writ petitioner-society be and hereby is quashed;

That the concerned respondent authorities be and hereby are directed to consider the application made by the writ petitioner-society for grant of permission to start and run the Teachers Training Institute in accordance with the law and especially having regard to the provision contained in Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.

That the concerned respondent authorities be and hereby are directed to dispose of the said application made by the writ petitioner-society within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.

That if necessary the respondents authorities concerned shall require the writ petitioner herein to submit such further particulars as may be necessary for the disposal of the said application of writ petitioner-society in the light of the directions and observations made in the judgment;

That it is, however, open to the respondent authorities concerned to consider any request made by the writ petitioner-society on behalf of the students of its students trained already in the Teachers Training Institute to appear for the examination on its own merits;

The claim of the writ petitioner-respondent is that though nearly a year passed by, neither permission was granted nor it was refused nor the respondent-Society was called upon to comply with any conditions and in spite of an application made by the Society to permit the students who are trained all through the year to appear for the examination, there was no response from the Government despite specific directions of the High Court and it thereupon filed the Writ Petition No. 172 of 1985 claiming the relief of a direction to declare the action of the Government in withholding permission to the writ petitioner-respondent society to run the Teachers Training Institute as arbitrary and sought consequential direction to allow it to continue to run the Teachers Training Institute. The said Writ Petition No. 172 of 1985 came up for admission on 8-1-1985 and in spite of the Rule nisi having been served on 25-1-1985, the appellant-respondent neither produced any records before Court nor any counter-affidavit was filed on their behalf. In that view, the learned single Judge accepted the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition and by orders dated 12-10-1988 allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved against the said orders of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred with a petition to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal which was returned by office with certain objections and was re-presented after complying with the objection with a petition to condone the delay of 92 days in re-presenting the appeal.

When the Condone delay petitions along with the writ appeal were listed before Court information was sought from the counsel whether the respondent Society was running the Teachers Training Institute or not. Learned Government Pleader took time for obtaining instructions in that behalf and on the next date of hearing submitted for our perusal a letter dated 14-3-1996 issued on behalf of the Commissioner and Director of School Education addressed to the Government Pleader informing that the private Training Institutes which were opened unauthorisedly during 1983-84 and 1984-85 were closed down on the verdict of the Supreme Court judgment and as such the writ petitioner-respondent Training Institute is not in existence and not functioning. It thus became obvious that the appellant had not complied with the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 and suo motu Contempt proceedings were directed to be initiated against the respondent-Contemnors in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 and notice was accordingly issued to them. In reply, the Commissioner and Director of School Education and the Secretary to Government, Education Department filed affidavits. In the respective affidavits, it is stated that they had assumed the Charge recently in June and July, 1995 respectively and for the first time, they came to know of the proceedings when the matter brought to their notice in the suo motu Contempt proceedings initiated. It is further stated therein that there has been no disobedience of the orders of the High Court dated 27-2-1984 in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 and in fact the orders have been duly complied with and a G.O. Rt. No. 76, Edn., dated 8-1-1985, Education (12) Department, was issued rejecting the request of the writ petitioner-respondent for permission to run the Teachers Institute during 1983-84. A copy of the said G.O. Rt. No. 76 has also been enclosed and a perusal thereof shows that in pursuance of the directions of Court dated 27-2-1984 in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983, an enquiry was conducted by the District Educational Officer into the working of the writ petitioner-respondent Institute with particular reference to the fulfilment of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and that the Enquiry Report reveals that the writ petitioner-respondent Institute does not fulfill any of the requirements prescribed in Section 20(3) of the said Act. It is worth mentioning here, that the aforesaid G.O.Rt. No. 76, Education is dated 8-1-1985 which is the date on which the Writ Petition No. 172 of 1985 had come up for admission before the learned single Judge and Rule nisi was directed to be issued on that date. The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 172 of 1985, as noticed above, was allowed by Orders dated 12-10-1988 on the ground that no counter-affidavit was filed nor any records had been produced before Court in spite of the Rule nisi having been served on 25-1-1985.

In the response filed in the Contempt Proceedings, the lapse in not bringing to the notice of Court, the issue of the orders in G.O. Rt. No. 76 has been deeply regretted.

It is surprising to note that the grounds of appeal in the instant case also do not make any reference to the issue of the G.O. Rt. No. 76, dated 8-1-1985. The above, as already noticed, have come to light only after initiating suo motu Contempt Proceedings against the respondents in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983.

The facts as can be gleaned are that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent, this Court in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 issued certain directions for disposal of the application filed by it for grant of permission to start the Teachers Training Institute in the light of provisions of Section 20 of A.P. Education Act, 1982. There was a further direction to dispose of the application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. The officials no doubt complied with the directions of Court, caused an enquiry to be made by the District Educational Officer, Kurnool and thereafter passed orders of rejection almost one year after the orders in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 were passed on 27-2-1984. While one can understand the delay in issuing the orders, it passes one''s comprehension as to why the orders passed on 8-1-1985 were not brought on record in W.P. No. 172 of 1985 and as to why no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant in spite of having been served with Rule nisi on 25-1-1985. The orders of learned single Judge in W.P. No. 172 of 1985 impugned in this appeal have been passed almost three years after Rule nisi had been served on the appellant. The passing of the orders by the learned single Judge dated 12-10-1988, impugned in this appeal would have been avoided, had the appellant filed its counter and produced relevant record in response to the Rule nisi. The orders dated 27-2-1984 had been complied with by the State, though belatedly, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner-respondent. If the same had been informed either to the writ petitioner-respondent or the Court, two options would have been available, either to grant liberty to the writ petitioner-respondent to question the said orders or to make fresh application to Government in accordance with the Rules as revised and which came into force in the year 1987. The impugned orders however would not have come to be passed. The indifferent attitude on behalf of those representing the State, Appellant in this appeal before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 172 of the 1985 are thus nothing short of showing indifference to the said proceedings before Court. The nonchalant attitude exhibited by those responsible for representing the State-appellant before the Court in W.P. No. 172 of 1985 has been the sole cause and ground for the learned single Judge to accept the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as correct and in allowing the writ petition. The learned single Judge has no option, but to allow the writ petition as the facts pleaded before the Court and supported by the orders passed in earlier W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 remained uncontroverted. The same indifferent continued even after the passing of the aforesaid orders in the filing of the writ appeal on vague grounds and not adverting or even remotely referring to the compliance of the orders passed in W.P. No. 10804 of 1983 and after substantial period of delay, the appeal has been filed. We have no doubt in our mind that, had the appellant shown cause and diligently represented the matter before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 172 of 1985, the orders assailed in the writ appeal may not have been passed against the appellant.

The State when it is a party before Court in any legal proceedings, it can seek no privilege, nor exhibit indifferent attitude to the proceedings pending before Court. Like any other litigant, it has to be vigilant and represent its case before Court diligently. State has at its disposal all the infrastructure and high ranking officers who are obliged to protest it''s as well as Public interests before Court. In the instant case, no effort was made on behalf of the State-appellant to respond to Rule nisi or even to produce the records before Court and it had therefore to suffer an order on that account. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including State as litigant are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. The State cannot claim any special treatment and it is difficult to approve the bureaucratic methodology or its indifferent or nonchalant attitude. We deprecate, the indifferent and the negligent attitude as exhibited by the officials of the State-appellant herein and are of the view that unless penalised, such attitude may be repeated in future too. By such actions, not merely by the public interest has suffered, affecting large number of students who wasted their time in an unrecognised institution, but caused avoidable wastage of Court''s time apart from embarrassing the Court into passing the impugned orders, as it had no other option.

In the circumstances, the appellant be and is hereby directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as costs to be credited to the Legal Aid Committee of this Court within a period of one month from the date thereof, in the hope and trust that the appellant and those representing its interests shall not give any further cause to this Court of this nature in future.

The Contempt Case in the light of the above is closed.

Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner-respondent shall be at liberty to make a fresh application to the State in accordance with the new Rules which have come into force from the year 1987 for seeking permission for starting the Course and accordingly with the aforesaid observation, the orders in W.P. No. 172 of 1985, dated 12-10-1988 are set aside and the writ appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.