IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 27558 of 2008 Between: 1 P.V. Venkatesh S/o. P.V. Jaganath Shop No.1, B.K.P. Road, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District. 2 P.S. Vengappa S/o. Chandrappa Shop No.14, B.K.P. Road, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District. 3 A. Peddavenkatesu S/o. Chinnarappa Shop No.6, P.T.P. Road, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur District, Ananthapur. 2 District Panchayat Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3 Kothacheruvu Grampanchayat, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District rep. by its Panchayat Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 1st respondent impugned order vide proceedings No. ROC No.1431/07/A5 (Panchayats) dated 6-12-08 with regard to the Shop No.1, 14 and 6 in B.K.P. Road and P.T.P. Road, Kothacheruvu Grampanchayat, Ananthapur District as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 27558 of 2008 Order: Petitioners, three in number, question the order of the first respondent dated 06.12.2008, in so far as their shops are concerned. In the order dated 06.12.2008, the District Collector, Ananthapur, noted that, in accordance with the orders issued by this Court in W.P. No. 875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, the petitioners did not approach the Collector within the stipulated time or even till date and that, in accordance with the directions of the High Court, permission was being accorded to the Gram Panchayat to conduct auction to certain shopping rooms of the Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat Secretary was directed to get the upset price from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Penukonda, to conduct auction for the shopping rooms and was directed to conduct auction in the presence of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Penukonda, Sub-Inspector and the Tahsildar, Kothacheruvu Mandal. The order of this Court in W.P. No. 875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, was on a direction being sought for by ten petitioners including all the three petitioners herein. The direction they sought in the said writ petition was to declare the action of the respondents in canceling the lease and dispossessing them in mid-term from the shops, as arbitrary and illegal and, consequently to direct the respondents not to cancel the lease or not to dispossess them from the shops. They arrayed the District Panchayat Officer, Ananthapur, and the Panchayat Secretary, Kottacheruvu Gram Panchayat as respondents to the said writ petition. This Court observed as under:- “Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also going through the relevant provision of law, this Court is of the view that granting of lease for a period of three years by the then Gram Panchayat Secretary is definitely contrary to the spirit of the G.O. Ms. No. 496. Further the said cancellation order passed by the District Collector on 24.07.2007 is also bad in law in view of the fact that Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act empowers the Government alone to cancel or suspend any resolution of a Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or a Zilla Parishad. According to sub-Section (3) of the said Section if the District Collector feels that immediate action is necessary to suspend a resolution, he may make a report to the Government and the Government may, by order in writing, suspend the resolution. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the petitioners are innocent and they shall not suffer because of the lapse committed by the authorities, I deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Anantapur, to consider the case of the petitioners provided the petitioners approach him and give a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The District Collector may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and if he comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for extension of lease, he may proceed with the auction of the shops in question. It is needless to observe that the Collector before passing the orders on the said representation shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the Gram Panchayat so that both the parties can ventilate their grievances. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioners.” While this Court had held that grant of lease was contrary to the spirit of G.O. Ms. No. 496, it also observed that the cancellation order of the District Collector dated 24.07.2007 was bad in law, in view of Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which empowered the Government alone to cancel or suspend any resolution of a Gram Panchayat and that the District Collector could only make a report to the Government for suspension of the resolution. Having so observed, this Court, nonetheless, deemed it appropriate to direct the District Collector to consider the case of the petitioners, provided the petitioners approached him and gave a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. While the petitioners assert that they had given a representation, the impugned order specifically records that the petitioners had not submitted any representation, let alone within two weeks, but even till the date of order. On being asked to establish that the petitioners had, indeed, submitted a representation, Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought time from 18.12.2008 till today. Today, when the matter was heard, she would state that, while the petitioners had submitted a representation, no acknowledgment was given thereto. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the petitioners had submitted a representation, and as this Court would not, ordinarily, examine disputed questions of fact as these are all matters for which evidence must be recorded, and such an exercise is not ordinarily undertaken in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the findings recorded in the impugned order that no representation was submitted by the petitioners cannot be faulted. Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Eguvakamma Kandriga Gram Panchayat v. District Collector, Chittoor[1], in support of her contention that Section 246(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, enables the District Collector only to make a report to the Government and that the power is conferred only on the Government, and not the District Collector, to interfere with the resolution passed by a Gram Panchayat. While this submission is no doubt attractive, it must, however, be borne in mind that this Court, in a judgment, inter-parties, in W.P. No.875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, had directed the District Collector to consider the case of the petitioners, provided they approached him with a representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The District Collector was called upon to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and, if he came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled for extension of lease, it was left open for him to proceed with the auction of the shops in question. This order in W.P. No. 875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, has attained finality. It is well settled that the binding character of orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction is, in essence, a part of the rule of law on which administration of justice is found. An order, passed after a hearing on merits, must bind the parties till set aside in appeal or revision. (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra[2]; UPSRTC Vs. State of U.P.[3]). The doctrine of res judicata is a universal doctrine laying down the finality of litigation between the parties. So far as the parties are concerned, they will always be bound by the said decision. In other words, either of the parties will not be permitted to reopen the issue decided by such a decision. (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India[4]). The principle of res judicata envisages that an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction directly upon a point creates a bar, as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another Court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier order. (Swamy Atmananda v. Swami Bodhananda[5]; Iswar Dath Vs. Land Acquisition Collector[6]). An order passed by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter, and over the parties, cannot be ignored as a nullity unless such erroneous orders are corrected in accordance with law. Such orders bind the parties in a subsequent litigation. (Barkat Ali Vs. Badrinarain[7]). Issues which have been concluded inter-parties cannot be raised again in proceedings inter-parties. (State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab[8]). Further, it is not for this Court to differ from or sit in judgment over an order passed by a coordinate Bench, which order has attained finality (The Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M/s. B.R. Constructions, Hyderabad[9]). This Court, in a writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, had held that the District Collector could proceed with auction of the shops, if he came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled for extension of lease, which was required to be examined by the District Collector only if a representation was submitted within two weeks, it is not for this Court to sit in judgment and examine the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in W.P. No. 875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008. Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioners, would state that the auction is due to be held on 22nd December 2008 and that, if no stay is granted, the petitioners will be dispossessed. While the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be said to be without merit, the limitations, which this Court has in sitting in judgment over an order passed by a coordinate Bench, cannot be lost sight of. All that can be observed is that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from participating in the auction and from submitting their bid for the shops in question. In view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 875 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, which order has attained finality, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 19.12.2008 Nsr/Asp [1] 2004 (2) ALT 317 (DB) [2] 1990(2) SCC 715 [3] 2005(1) SCC 444 [4] AIR 1990 SC 334 [5] AIR 2005 SC 2227 [6] 2005(7) SCC 190 [7] AIR 2001 Rajasthan 51 [8] 2004(12) SCC 673 [9] 1994(1) AnWR 450(FB)