C. Prakash v. Rep by its

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.

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.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

There is no necessity of going into all the details.

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:- Sect ion 27:Execut ion 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.

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.