IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 557 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2009 in WP NO : 1108 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.K. Raja Gopal, S/o. Venkatappa, R/o. 2/499-1 A Nehru Nagar, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. 2 A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board Rep. by its Secretary A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 M.K. Raja Gopal S/o. Venkatappa R/o. 2/499-1A, Nehru Narag, Kadapah City, Kadapah District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Sarvodaya Mandal Rep. by its President, Sri. G.V. Subba Rao,S/o. Narsimha Rao Andhra Pradesh Sarvodaya Mandal, Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretariat, saifabad,Hyderabad. Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, rep by its Secretary, A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: S.NIRANJAN REDDY(SC FOR UCIL) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.557 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The appointment of the appellant as a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board (for brevity, ‘the Board’) in a casual vacancy was called in question in W.P.No.1108 of 2009. By order dated 26.02.2009, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the said appointment. Hence, this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Sarvodaya Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), a Society registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350-F, through its President, G.V.Subba Rao. It is stated that the Society is the Andhra Pradesh Chapter of the Akhil Bharatiya Sarvodaya Mandal @ Serva Seva Sangh and is said to have been established as per the instructions of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave. The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdhan Act, 1965 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1965’) was promulgated to facilitate the Bhoodan Movement started by Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave and aid the donation of lands for Bhoodan Yagna and Gramdan. Section 3 of the Act of 1965 provides for constitution and incorporation of the Board, a body corporate with perpetual succession. Section 4 of the Act of 1965 provides the composition of the Board and states that the Board shall consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman and nine members, who are all to be appointed by the State Government. Section 4 also stipulates that in the constitution of the Board, the Government shall consult Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave or the person nominated by him. The case of the Society before the learned single Judge was that it is the nominee of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave, as is evidenced by his letter dated 08.01.1973, but the appellant was appointed as a Member of the Board in a casual vacancy without consulting it as required under Section 4 of the Act of 1965. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that his appointment was effected under Section 8 of the Act of 1965 which deals with filling of casual vacancies and that the said Section did not require consultation with the nominee of the Acharya. The learned Judge was of the opinion that an obligation is placed on the State Government while appointing the Members of the Board to consult the Acharya or a person nominated by him. On the basis of the earlier proceedings issued by the State Government constituting the Board, the learned Judge found that the State Government had, in fact, consulted the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, which was said to be a close associate of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave. The constitution of the Board in the year 2008 was also on the basis of such consultation. The learned Judge accordingly held that merely because Section 8, dealing with filling of casual vacancies, did not mention the consultation process, it would not relieve the State of it’s obligation in this regard. As no such consultation was manifest from the record pertaining to the appointment of the appellant, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside G.O.Ms.No.27, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 06.01.2009, whereby the appellant was appointed as a Member of the Board in a casual vacancy. The learned Judge left it open to the State Government to fill the vacancy after following the due procedure of consultation. Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Judge was not correct in his interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1965. It is his case that filling of casual vacancies does not require consultation with the nominee of the Acharya, as is required in the case of appointments under Section 4 of the Act of 1965. By way of an additional affidavit filed in this appeal, the learned counsel attacked the locus of the Society to question the appointment of the appellant, stating that the President of the Society, G.V.Subba Rao, was himself appointed as a Member of the Board upon consultation with and the recommendation of the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, and therefore the Society could not claim to be the nominee of the Acharya. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the Society that filling up of casual vacancies as per Section 8 of the Act of 1965 would necessarily have to be in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 4 thereof. Therefore, the lack of consultation with the nominee of the Acharya would render the appointment of the appellant illegal and unsustainable. It is stated that the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, was consulted in the process of the constitution of the Board earlier on a reference made by the Society itself. The learned counsel for the Society therefore submitted that the order under appeal does not warrant interference in this appeal. The appellant was appointed as a Member of the Board vide G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 06.01.2009. The relevant portion of the G.O. reads as hereunder: “2. Sri P.Jayarami Reddy, Advocate, in his representation 2nd read above, has submitted that he could not concentrate on the activities of the Board to his satisfaction due to his family problems and tendered his resignation to the Post of Member of the AP Bhoodhan Yagna Board, and requested to accept his resignation with immediate effect. He has further represented that on the oral instructions of the Chairman of the Board, he has requested the Government to appoint Sri M.K.Rajgopal, Nehrunagar, Kadapa as Member of the Bhoodhan Board as he is well acquainted with Rules and regulations. 3. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby issue the following Notification: NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the AP Bhoodan and Gramdan Act 1965 (Act 13 of 1965), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby accepts the resignation of Sri P.Jayarami Reddy to the post of Member, AP Bhoodan Yagna Board and hereby appoint Sri M.K.Rajagopal, Kadapa as a Member of AP Bhoodan Yagna Board in place of Sri P.Jayaramireddy. The Term of his appointment will be completed on par with other Members.” The propriety and correctness of the Government in acting upon the recommendation of the out going member and appointing the appellant as a Member of the Board is itself open to question. However, it is more relevant to note that the order of appointment does not reflect that the nominee of the Acharya was consulted prior to such appointment. It is also to be noted that the Government resorted to exercise of powers under Section 3 read with sub-section (1) of Section 4 and not Section 8 of the Act of 1965. Filling of casual vacancies in the Board has to be effected under Section 8 of the Act of 1965. Section 8 reads as hereunder: “8. Filling of casual vacancies:- Any casual vacancy in the office of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or any other member of the Board shall, as soon as may be, after the occurrence of such vacancy be filled by appointment of another person and the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or other member so appointed shall enter upon office forthwith but shall hold office only for the residue of the term of his predecessor.” It is no doubt true that Section 8 does not explicitly apply the methodology of consultation followed in appointing a person to the Board under Section 4, while filling up a casual vacancy. Appointment to the Board is dealt with under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1965 and reads as hereunder: “4. Composition of the Board:- (1) The Board shall consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman and nine other members to be appointed by the Government and in the constitution of such Board, the Government shall consult Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave or a person nominated by him.” It is therefore manifest that the procedure to be followed in appointing the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the members of the Board is prescribed only in Section 4. The argument of Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel, that Section 8 of the Act of 1965 does not speak of the consultation process mentioned in Section 4 of the Act of 1965, and therefore, filling of casual vacancies in the Board does not require such consultation, though attractive and plausible on first blush, is inherently fallacious. The consultation with the Acharya or his nominee is made mandatory for the composition of the Board as the very purpose of such exercise and the consequent functioning of such a Board is to achieve the objectives and aims of the Bhoodan Movement initiated by the Acharya. That is the reason why Section 4 stipulates in no uncertain terms that in the constitution of the Board, the Government should consult the Acharya or a person nominated by him. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted what cannot be achieved by way of the direct composition of the Board under Section 4, could very well be accomplished by resorting to filling of casual vacancies by the State Government at its own whims and fancies, without consulting the nominee of the Acharya, which is a statutory must. Therefore, the phrase ‘be filled by appointment of another person’ used in Section 8 of the Act of 1965, (emphasis added) necessarily imports the ‘appointment process’ stipulated in Section 4 of the Act of 1965 into Section 8 for filling casual vacancies. Needless to state, the provisions of the Act have to be read together and in this process, the consultation methodology provided in Section 4 invariably has to be read into the appointments made under Section 8 of the Act of 1965. In the light of the aforestated legal position, the appointment of the appellant by way of G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 06.01.2009 without consulting the nominee of the Acharya is clearly unsustainable. Though an attack has been mounted by the appellant at the eleventh hour upon the locus of the Society to maintain the writ petition challenging his appointment, the same is of no consequence in the light of our finding hereinabove. It is to be noticed that the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, is not before this Court and we are not called upon to decide as to whether it is the Society or the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, which is the nominee of the Acharya. The fact remains that neither the Society nor the Akhil Bharat Rachanatmak Samaj, New Delhi, were consulted by the State Government before effecting the appointment of the appellant as a Member of the Board in a casual vacancy. Once his appointment was in violation of the statute, the Society cannot be non-suited on the ground that it may not be the nominee of the Acharya as claimed by it. The dynamic principles of locus standi cannot be encapsulated in an archaic straight jacket. All the more so, when the concept of ‘locus standi’ has itself been liberalized to a great extent by the Courts. A statutory violation cannot be ignored only on the ground that the person approaching the Court assailing the same may not technically have the standing or may not harbour an actual grievance to maintain such an attack. We are, thus, of the opinion that the learned Judge was correct in holding that the appointment of the appellant as a Member of the Board in a casual vacancy without consulting the nominee of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave is legally unsustainable, being in violation of the statutory requirement. The order under appeal is therefore unassailable on facts and in law. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO,J -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J _______OCTOBER, 2009 PGS