HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11435 OF 2010 Between: Ch. Madhusudan Rao S/o Ch. Rajagopal Rao ………….Petitioner AND K. Srinivasa Rao and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 12.9.2008 passed in O.A.No. 7489 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and consequently declare the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 15, Irrigation &CAD (Ser.V.III.A1) Department dated 04.02.2008 allotting the 1st respondent to Zone –II as illegal as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. The Tribunal while admitting the O.A viz., O.A.No. 7489 of 2008, passed the following interim order: “Heard both sides. Admit. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Interim relief: The impugned proceedings issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 15, I & CAD (Ser.VIII.A) Department, dated 4.2.2008, and all other consequential proceedings issued in pursuance of the above said orders are suspended in so far as the applicant is concerned until further orders.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services -II and also perused the material made available on record. Admittedly, in the O.A notices were issued to the respondents and the matter is under adjudication. When once the Tribunal is seized of the matter and there is no decision rendered on merits, this Court is not inclined to determine the rights of the parties, which amounts to have parallel adjudication of the matter. The Tribunal while granting interim suspension is expected to record reasons in writing for granting or refusing interim relief. Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under: “ 24. Conditions as to making of interim orders: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an application unless- a) copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made or proposed to be made; and b) opportunity is given to such party to be heard in the matter: Provided that a Tribunal may dispense with the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) and make an interim order as an exceptional measure if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss being caused to the applicant which cannot be adequately compensated in money but any such interim order shall, if it is not sooner vacated, cease to have effect on the expiry of a period of fourteen days from the date on which it is made unless the said requirements have been complied with before the expiry of that period and the Tribunal has continued the operation of the interim order.” (Emphasis supplied) This Court by an order dated 12.5.2010 granted interim suspension of the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 7489 of 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is pending adjudication before the Tribunal and the bench has not been constituted for disposing of the matters for the last two years. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in ELECTION COMMISISONOF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY AND ANOTHER[1], with regard to doctrine of necessity. Since the Tribunal has passed an interlocutory order and the main case is still pending for adjudication before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits. The Supreme Court in ELECTION COMMISISONOF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY AND ANOTHER (supra-1) observed that if the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and defaulting party would benefit therefrom. The relevant portion at paragraph 16 of the order reads as under: “16. We must have a clear conception of the doctrine. It is well settled that the law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity, which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom. Take the case of a certain taxing statute which taxes certain perquisites allowed to judges. If the validity of such a provision is challenged who but the members of the judiciary must decide it. If all the judges are disqualified on the plea that striking down of such a legislation would benefit them, a stalemate situation may develop. In such cases the doctrine of necessity comes into play. If the choice is between allowing a biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favour of the former as it is the only way to promote decision-making. In the present case also if the two Election Commissioners are able to reach a unanimous decision, there is no need for the Chief Election Commissioner to participate, if not the doctrine of necessity may have to be invoked.” This Court in connected Writ Petition Nos. 23391, 15090 of 2009 and batch by an order dated 29.12.2009 at paragraphs 18, 19 and 34 observed as under: “18. Accordingly, he submits that the interim order of the tribunal staying the said GO to the extent of applicant before it amounts to frustrating the Presidential Order itself. He therefore, submits that the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 158 dated 2.12.2008 is only a consequential GO and as such, the interim order of the tribunal and various further orders, which are passed at various stages in different O.A’s and contempt applications as are subject matters of this batch of cases, is completely unwarranted and has resulted in immense harm to the public interest. He submits that even in the said repatriation as ordered, the seniority of the candidate repatriated remains unaffected. Further, the TTA is admissible on such transfers and as such, no prejudice is being caused to the candidate repatriated inasmuch as the candidate is being sent to the local cadre to which the candidate belongs. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State before the tribunal in the said OA together with application seeking vacation of the said interim order and pointed out that the aforesaid exercise in issue G.O.Ms.No. 158 dated 2.12.2008 is taken up only in terms of para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order in public interest and that majority of the repatriated teachers have already been relieved and have joined at the place of local cadre in their respective districts. 34. We are, therefore, of the view that the OA No. 10431 of 2008 filed by the respondent before the tribunal is itself misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order passed by the tribunal on 15.12.2008 suspending G.O.Ms.No. 158 dated 2.12.2008 so far as the applicant/respondent herein is concerned stands vacated.” Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA[2], also observed as under: “The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution.” Since the matter involves repatriation of non- locals from the local areas and implementation of G.O.Ms.No. 610, General Administration (SPF.A) Department dated 30.12.1985, we deem it appropriate to request the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to constitute a bench as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in ELECTION COMMISISONOF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY AND ANOTHER (supra-1) and take up all the matters filed by the Government as well as the private parties, and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also clarified that mere absence of an administrative member shall not be a hurdle to constitute a bench and take up the matter, as there is urgency involved in the matter. However, interim suspension granted by this Court in this Writ Petition on 12.5.2010 shall remain, as it is for a period of four weeks from today and such relief is restricted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 01.02.2011 KA Note: (1) Mark a copy to the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by a special messenger. (2) Mark a copy to the Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad. ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (1996) 4 SCC 104 [2] (1997) 3 SCC 261