GODDE VENKATESWARA RAO versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 11-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GODDE VENKATESWARA RAO 
V. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS 
October 11, 1965 
A 
(K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act (35 o/ 
1959), ss. 62 and 72-Scope of-Rules under-Validity of. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226---TV!to can file petition under. 
In order to promote rural welfar·z, the respondent had given adminis-
trative directions for dividing districts into Blocks and for the appoint-
ment of Block Planning and Development Committees. In pursuance of 
those directions, a primary health centre was inaugurated in a village in 
NoYember 1958 in accordance with the resolution of the Block Planning 
and Development Committee. 
Ono of the conditions which the village 
had to comply with was that it should give 2 acres of land free end a 
cash contribution of at least Rs. 10,000. 
Since the amount was not pyid 
by the village, the Block Planning and Development Committee, resolved 
to shift the primary health centre to 'mother village with the consent of 
the representatives of the first village. The second village chosen, satisfied 
the condition regarding land and cash contribution on 27th July 1959 
am! thereafter, on 31st July 1959 the first ,-iUage also satisfied the condi-
tion. 
In August 1959 the Commirtee by a resolution decided to locate 
the centre at the second village, but the respondent directed that the 
matter should be decided by tho Panchayat Samithi, as by the time, the 
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 had 
come into force and a Panchayat Samithi had been established for the 
concerned Block. 
Though in May 1960, the Panchayat Samithi at first 
resolved to have the centre at the first village, and though the said resolu-
tion was approved by the respondent, the Panchayat Samithi finally, by its 
resolution on 29th May 1961, cancelled its earlier resolution and resolved 
to locate the centre at the second village. On 7th March 1962, the res-
pondent set aside tho resolution of May 1961 of the Panchayat Samithi 
on the ground that it did not get the requisite support of 2/3rd majority. 
On 18th April, 1963, the respondent rcvi-2\ved its previous order on the 
ground that the said orf:}er was made under a mi5taken impression that 
the hcaHh centre ~'as pem1anently located at the first village) and directed 
that the centre should be located in the second village. 
The appellant, \Vho was the representative of the first viilage in all the 
proceedings, filed an application heforq the High Court under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution for quashing the Government order dated 18rh April 
1963. The petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
Jn appeal to this Court. the appellant cc>ntendcd that : (i) Assuming 
the first Government order dated 7th March 1962 was made under s. 72( I), 
the impugned order <lated 18th ApriI, 1963 r-=:vic\ving the first, was invalid, 
ina.-;much as the prerequisite for the exercise .of the power of rcvie\\•, 
namelv, the existence of a mistnkc of fact or law or the ignorance of 
any niatcria1 fact.. v..·as not sati;;;.fied, (ii) the first Government order \Vas 
m:.i.dc under s. 62 of the Act. and therefore could not be revie\vect by 
the impugned order under s. 72 and (iii) the imnugned order was invalid. 
because it was n1ado without giving an o~portunity to the partv prejudiced 
thereby. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appellant 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
, 
G 
H 
G. v. RAO v. STATE (Subba Rao, J.) 
I 7 ;l 
had no personal right in the matter and therefore had no /oms s1andi to 
file the application, nnd also urged, that the in1pugned ordt.':r \Va') neither 
made under s. 62 nor under s. 72. of the Act, but that it was really passed 
under the rules mllile by the respondent in exercise of the power conferred 
on it under s. 69 of the Act read with s. 18(2) and that therclore, no 
question of revie\V would arise at aH as the respondent passed the final 
order in regard to the location of the health centre. 
HEW : (i) The appellant had the right to maintain the application. 
Ordinarily, the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Art. 
226 should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject 
matter of the petition. 
The personal right need not be in respect of a 
proprietary interest : it can also rela'.e to an interest of a 
trustee. 
In 
exceptional cases, a person who has been prejudicially affected 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.