Disposed

State of Ap v. Naram Venkata Lakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2020WA/768/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal ex parte due to the continued non-appearance of the respondent/writ petitioner. The court also waived previously imposed costs against appellant No.3 for failing to communicate specific reasons regarding mutation rejection.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed ex parte against respondent; costs against appellant No.3 waived; order to communicate reasons remains enforceable.

State of Ap Vs Naram Venkata Lakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

Writ Appeal No.768 of 2018

¶3

(Proceedings taken up through video conferencing)

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar)

¶5

Heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao , learned counsel for the appellants.

¶6

Despite repeated adjournments, today again, there is nonappearance on behalf of the sole respondent/writ petitioner.

¶7

On perusal of the docket, it is evident that notice was already served on the respondent and name of learned counsel for the respondent is appearing in the daily cause list. Even then there was nonappearance on behalf of respondent; and, as such, day before yesterday, i.e., on 02.11.2020, the case was adjourned as a last indulgence with an indication that if again, no one appears on behalf of the respondent, the Court may propose to decide the case ex parte against the respondent.

¶8

Since today, again there is non-appearance on behalf of the respondent; there is no reason to further defer the matter.

¶9

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of ex parte against the respondent.

¶10

Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao , learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the writ appellants submits that the order impugned, i.e., order, dated 04.01.2018, was passed in W.P.No.43770 of 2017 without affording an opportunity to the appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition. He further tried to persuade the Court that the writ petitioner had not placed the entire facts before the writ Court; and, the writ petition was allowed setting aside endorsement, dated 20.10.2017, passed by the Tahasildar; and, a further direction was issued to appellant

¶11

RK, J & JUD, J W.A.No.768 of 2018

¶12

¶13

no.3, Tahasildar, to communicate specific reasons as to why the request of the petitioner for mutation was not acceded to by him and what documents the writ petitioner was required to produce. A cost of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since while allowing the writ petition, no specific relief was granted to the writ petitioner; and, only direction was given to Tahasildar, who is appellant no.3, to communicate specific reasons; the appellants are not aggrieved with the said portion of the impugned order and that the said order will be complied with in accordance with law without any delay. However, a plea has been taken that costs of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on appellant No.3; whereas, appellant No.3 was not given any opportunity to file his response. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that while approving the order of the learned Single Judge whereby direction was issued to appellant No.3 to communicate specific reasons regarding refusal of the request of the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with the said portion of the order of the writ Court.

¶15

So far as imposition of costs is concerned, considering the fact that a plea has been taken that no reasonable opportunity was given and appellant no.3 was not in a position to file his response, it would be appropriate to waive the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge.

¶16

Accordingly, portion of the order, whereby costs were imposed is hereby waived; and, appellant No.3 would not be required to deposit costs. But, at the same time, in compliance with part of the order passed by the writ Court, the appellant No.3 is required to communicate specific reasons for rejection of the request to the petitioner preferably

¶17

RK, J & JUD, J W.A.No.768 of 2018

¶18

¶19

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above observation, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

______________ Rakesh Kumar, J

¶24

____________ J. Uma Devi, J

¶25

Dt.04.11.2020 RAR

State of Ap v. Naram Venkata Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Ap v. Naram Venkata Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandhi Institute of Technology Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Sunitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MD Riaz Vs Union of India

N.Chinnabbayi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manda Sai Krishna Vs the State of Ap

Veguru Radhaiah at Pedda Radhaiah Vs K. Nagaraju