IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 20812 of 2008 Between: C. Prakash, S/o. Chengaiah, Galeru Nagari Srujala Sravanthi Project, Unit-II, Puttur, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Ser.) Dept. Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the Orders dt. 20-4-2005 made in OA No. 7034/2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice contrary to law and consequently the respondents be directed to implement the orders dated 20- 4-2005 in OA No. 7034/2004, forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.20812 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders, dated 20.04.2005, in O.A.No.7034 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioner, though he is fully qualiﬁed and eligible for the post of Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (Tahsildar) by promotion and also entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel of Deputy Collectors, the authorities have failed to consider his case for promotion, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him have not been ﬁnalized, while his juniors were promoted, and therefore, challenging the said action, he ﬁled an application being O.A.No.7034 of 2004 before the Tribunal, and the same was disposed of on 20.04.2005 directing the respondents therein to ﬁnalize the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which the applicant’s case shall be considered for promotion as M.R.O. (Tahsildar cadre) and also for inclusion of his name in the cadre of Deputy Collector in accordance with rules, according to his seniority and if he comes within the zone of consideration, and it further directed the applicant to co-operate with the authorities in completion of the enquiry as directed above. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of passing of the orders in the said O.A., the respondents failed to implement the same. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 4. There is no necessity of going into all the details. 5. As per Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), this Court, by way of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has no authority to pass an order directing the respondent authorities to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal. Section 27 of the Act reads as hereunder:- Section 27:Execution of orders of a Tribunal:- Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, [the order of a Tribunal ﬁnally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be ﬁnal and shall not be called in question in any court (including a High Court) and such order] shall be executed in the same manner in which any ﬁnal order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20(whether or not such ﬁnal order had actually been made) in respect of the grievance to which the application relates would have been executed. 6. In view of the above provision of law, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is misconceived and the same is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies as provided to him under law. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29.09.2008 v v