AP High Court quashes 4 per cent reservation to Muslims

By S A Ishaqui


Hyderabad,Feb. 8: The AP High Court in a majority decision on Monday struck down as nsustainable the legislation providing four per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs to backward groups among Muslims.

A seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice Anil R. Dave was divided 5-2 and provided three different decisions while striking down the legislation. Justice Dave while pronouncing the verdict on his behalf and on behalf of Justice A. Gopal Reddy, Justice V. Eswaraiah and Justice G. Raghuram opin-ed that the legislation failed to define the expressions “Muslim” and “other Mus-lim groups.” The Act violated Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution.

The court faulted the surveys relied upon by the BC Commission to enumerate Muslim backwardness. The commission’s own survey was “not sufficient,” it said.

The judges said, “In our opinion, the 2007 Act is religion-specific and potentially encourages religious conversion, and is thus unsustainable.” The court struck down the AP Reservations in Favour of Socially and Education-ally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 and the Government Orders Ms 23 and 231 to provide reservation for Muslim.

verdict is third setback for State

Justice Meena Kumari of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, who partly agreed with the decision of the Chief Justice to strike down Muslim reservations, rendered her verdict separately. She declared that the government has the power to refer to the BC Commission for identifying backward classes to provide reservation to socially and educationally backward classes.
Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice D.S.R. Varma totally differed with the majority opinion. Justice Varma said he would pass orders soon by citing reasons for dismissal of the writs filed against the Act.
Justice Prakash Rao said that he would confine himself to answering the references made by the five-member bench which had dealt earlier with the same petition.
This is the third setback for the state government on the issue.
In 2004, the AP High Court had struck down a government order providing five per cent reservations to Muslims.
In 2005, the government issued Ordinance 13 and subsequently enacted a Bill. These were also struck down by the High Court. The government moved an SLP against the verdict in Supreme Court which is pending.
The Act struck down on Monday was enacted in 2007. This Act had been stayed by the High Court and the apex court suspended the stay on an appeal by the state government.
In the main, the court faulted the BC Commission for relying on surveys which were unscientific and irrational and not carried out for the purpose of enumerating backwardness among Muslims.
The BC Commission carried out its own survey but the court found that it was “not sufficient,” and the report is “not based on real facts, data or analysis and is without proper survey.” The commission had limited its survey to six districts within three days.
The court also pointed out that “the legislature ought to have taken care, while making the enactment, to define the word ‘Muslim’ and the phrase ‘other Muslim groups’ and state clearly as to who actually falls within these definitions, for enjoying the benefits under the Act.”
The court was dealing with a petition filed by an advocate, Mr Muralidhar Rao, and a student, Ms Tejasri. Another advocate, Mr K. Kondala Rao, and several other individuals and organisations filed petitions challenging and in favour of the legislation.
Justice Anil R. Dave declared that the recommendations set out in the report of the AP Backward Commission submitted on July 2, 2007, are unsustainable as it failed to spell out relevant criteria for identification of social and educational backwardness and inadequate representation in public employment among classes of persons belonging to the Muslim community.
He pointed out that the commission failed in obtaining the population figure of several classes, groups belonging to the Muslim community for inclusion of BC Group-E.

Andhra Pradesh DGP R R Girish Kumar gets a reprieve

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Feb. 5: The AP High Court on Friday suspended an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had set aside the appointment of Mr R.R. Girish Kumar as director-general of police.

The tribunal had on January 28 set aside as “illegal and arbitrary” the appointment of Mr Kumar, and directed the government to appoint a new DGP within two weeks. The tribunal had passed orders on petitions filed by the former DGPs, Mr A.K. Mohanty and Mr S.S.P. Yadav.

The CAT order was suspended by a division bench comprising Justice V. Eswaraiah and Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar. The judges suspended the operation of the CAT order till the final disposal of the government’s petition.

The court prima facie agreed with the contention of the government that the state has the power to create a post. The judges did not agree with the contention of Mr Yadav that his transfer to the APSRTC tantamounts to a reversion.

The tribunal had directed the government to release the due amounts to both Mr Mohanty and Mr Yadav as they were transferred to low payscale posts. The court said the pay attached to the DGP in the apex scale was allowable only as long as the incumbent held the post.

Central Administrative Tribunal orders AP to appoint new DGP

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Jan. 28: The Central Administrative Tribunal on Thursday set aside as illegal and arbitrary the appointment of Mr R.R. Girish Kumar as the director-general of police of the state and directed the government to appoint a new DGP within two weeks.

This has landed the government in a fix since it wants to retain Mr Kumar as chief of the police force.

It is learnt that the government is likely to take up the selection process afresh as suggested by the CAT and “choose” Mr Kumar as DGP again by citing lack of specific Central guidelines to select the head of the police force.
Alternatively, it may approach the High Court.

The CAT bench comprising Justice P. Lakshman Reddy and Mr R. Santhanam, gave this directive while dealing with petitions filed by IPS officers Mr A. K. Mohanty and Mr S.S.P. Yadav, former DGPs who were transferred to low payscale posts.

The CAT bench observed that Mr Mohanty and Mr Yadav was entitled to the apex scale even after their transfer.

Mr Girish Kumar was eligible to apex scale only from December 10, 2009, when the Centre sanctioned the fifth post of DGP. It directed the government to pay amounts due to senior IPS officers.

Mr Yadav approached the CAT in October 2009 challenging the appointment of Mr Girish, a 1976-batch IPS officer, as the DGP.

On Mr Mohanty, the CAT said that since his appointment covered only the election period, he could not claim benefits of SC directions regarding selection and tenure of the DGP.

These directives give a new twist to the career graphs of Mr Girish and Mr Yadav, both of who had stirred up controversy through their comments and actions.

Reacting to the CAT order, Mr Kumar said, “The government will take a decision as per the directions given by the CAT.”

The DGP’s adversaries point out that absence of specific guidelines may not be of much help to him since even if one assesses the merit of an officer by the medals he received for outstanding service, Mr Girish would not score.

At the same time, government sources made light of the CAT reference to the SC order on retaining officers in the top post for a minimum of two years by pointing out that no state had agreed to implement it.

Advocate to look into Reliance land deal

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Jan 27 :The AP High Court on Wednesday appointed an advocate commissioner to find out the ground reality on the alleged unauthorised purchase of land by Reliance Industries Ltd. in East Godavari district.

A division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice G. Bhavani Prasad passed an order appointing Mr Sampath Prabhakar Reddy as advocate commissioner. He has been asked to submit the report within three weeks.

The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by Mr Lanke Maheswara Rao and his mother alleging that RIL had taken over 8.23 acres in Peda Gadimoga village in East Godavari by illegal means.

The RIL in its counter affidavit contended that the petitioners do not possess a title over the land. It said though they are ready for a compromise, but they petitioners are quoting an exorbitantly high price for the land.

AP High Court stalls lease of land given to film director Subhash Ghai

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Jan. 27: A piece of land leased to Bollywood producer Mr Subhash Ghai in the Greater Hyderabad area by the state government was stalled by the AP High Court on Wednesday.

The state government had issued a GO on August 19, 2008, alienating 20.10 acres at Ibrahimbagh village in Golconda mandal of the city to Whistling Woods International Ltd owned by Mr Ghai.

The government allotted the land for a period of 66 years to be renewed every 30 years at a nominal lease rent of 1 per cent of the land value.

Mr O. M. Debara, a retired employee and a resident of Hyderabad, approached the High Court through a public interest litigation against the allotment. The petitioner contended that the allotment was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and against the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area)

Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975 and the AP

(Telangana Area) Grant of lease of land for Non-Agricultural Purposes Rules, 1977.

The petitioner said the land was leased to the company at an annual lease of 0.25 per cent of the land cost for the first three years and a lease rent of 1 per cent of land cost from the fourth year onwards. He said for payment of lease the value of land was fixed at Rs 2 crore per acre and the lease was granted for 66 years initially and renewable for a further period 30 years.

Mr Gandra Mohan Rao, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the state government has the power to alienate government land at nominal rates to local bodies or local authorities for a public purpose. He contended that the alienation to a private company, which is not a local body or local authority, could be by collecting market value only.

A division bench comprising Justice V. V. S. Rao and Justice B. N. Rao Nalla conceding to the contention of the petitioner granted stay on the implementation of the GO till further orders.