Andhra Government Press Employees Union (Regd. No. 2687) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

1.ANDHRA GOVERNMENT PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD. NO. 2687), ANDHRA GOVERNMENT PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD. NO.2687) AFFILIATED TO INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY G.SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O.RANGAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DOOR NO.42/2A, GOWLIGERI.KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522237

¶14

2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522237

¶15

3.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 522237.

¶16

4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 518001

¶18

6.THE COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KURNOOL - 518501

¶19

7.THE TAHSILDAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶20

8.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURNOOL II TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT 518501

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER :

¶30

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶31

India seeking the following relief:

¶32

“… to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 1) Restraining the Station House Officer of Kurnool 2 Town Police Station from interfering in the affairs of the petitioner Union 2) Direct the Kurnool Municipal Corporation to restore the name A P Government Press Employees Union INTUC in the municipal records and 3) Declaring the endorsement dated 07.02.2026 issued by the Tahsildar as illegal and arbitrary and pass…”

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶34

Government Pleader.

¶35

Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the Station House Officer, Kurnool II Town Police Station, from interfering in the internal affairs of the Petitioner Union, directing the Kurnool Municipal Corporation to restore the name “A.P. Government Press Employees Union

¶36

(INTUC)” in its records, and declaring the endorsement dated 07.02.2026 issued by the Tahsildar as illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner Union, duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and affiliated to INTUC since 1975, was allotted Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.145/32, Kurnool Town by proceedings Rc.A4/88/84 dated 06.02.1984, constructed its office with members’ contributions, and has continuously paid municipal taxes in its name for decades. Recently, certain non- members instigated proceedings before the revenue authorities, resulting in the impugned endorsement and alteration of municipal records without affording the Union an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The police, who have no jurisdiction in civil or internal union matters, are pressurizing the Union to permit non- members into its premises, acting beyond lawful authority. The Petitioner Union, recognized as the majority union in elections conducted by the Labour Department in 2015, continues to enjoy such status and has no efficacious alternative remedy. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the endorsement dated 07.02.2026, restore the Union’s name in municipal records, restrain Respondent No.5 police authorities from interfering in union affairs.

¶37

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the writ petition, insofar as it alleges interference by Respondent No.3, the Station House Officer of Kurnool II Town Police Station, is misconceived and unsustainable. On receipt of a representation dated 09.03.2026 from office bearers of the Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council, the

¶38

Station House Officer merely summoned the Petitioner and others on 11.03.2026, enquired into the matter, advised resolution either amicably or before the competent civil forum, and submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police on 12.03.2026. Beyond this lawful exercise, the Respondent Police has not interfered in the Petitioner Union’s affairs nor pressurized it to admit non- members. The endorsement dated 07.02.2026 and subsequent municipal mutation were based on records showing allotment of the property for the welfare of all press employees, not exclusively for any association. The police authorities have acted strictly within their jurisdiction and remain bound to comply with any directions of this Court or competent authorities.

¶39

In the considered view of this Court, the Petitioner Union has made out a prima facie case warranting judicial protection, inasmuch as the impugned endorsement dated 07.02.2026 was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Union, thereby offending the sacrosanct principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The Union, being a duly registered body under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and having been continuously recognized as the majority union by the Labour Department, cannot be divested of its legal identity or proprietary rights in municipal records by unilateral administrative fiat. The coercive overtures of the police authorities, who are constitutionally proscribed from trenching upon civil disputes or internal union affairs, amount to an excess of jurisdiction and a colourable exercise of power. The settled legal position is that the State and its instrumentalities are bound to act fairly, reasonably, and within the four corners of law, and any deviation

¶40

therefrom renders their action arbitrary and liable to be interdicted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petitioner Union’s grievance merits acceptance, and the endorsement impugned herein is liable to be set aside as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Union’s vested rights.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents Police henceforth not to interfere with the affairs of the Petitioner Union. However, liberties are granted to the Petitioner to challenge the proceedings/endorsement issued by the Respondent No.7/Tahsildar and to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against Kurnool Municipal Corporation for restoring the name “A.P. Government Press Employees Union (INTUC)” in the municipal records. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶43

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶44

Date: 31.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by today B/o VTS

Andhra Government Press Employees Union (Regd. No. 2687) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Government Press Employees Union (Regd. No. 2687) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chodipilli Prabhu Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Hussain Bi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thontla Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Inaganti Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Venkata Swami Vs the State of Ap

Yerukala Sive Sankar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh