Disposed

K.Sanni Babu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2020WP/1303/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging inaction on a layout sanction plan. Petitioner counsel abandoned the merit challenge and sought only a direction to dispose of their representation. Court issued such direction citing precedent against trivial orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the representation dated 17.08.2019 within four weeks.

K.Sanni Babu Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.1303 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5^th respondent in not acting upon the petitioners representation/objections dated 17.08.2019 to grant lay out sanction plan to respondent Nos 6 and 7 in Sy.No.359/3 to 14 of Gidijala Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and against the principles of Natural justice and opposed to The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act 2008.”

¶6

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 17.08.2019, without touching the merits of the case.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 17.08.2019, if any pending with the authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice.

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

MSM,J

As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 17.08.2019, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of both the counsel, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 17.08.2019, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from today. No costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

03.02.2020 s

K.Sanni Babu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sanni Babu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantikpilli Nookaraju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Alavala Veera Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kundem Maha Lakshmeswara rao Vs the State of Ap

Sri Chekuri Venkata Radhakrishna Vs the State of Ap

Molpgu Venkataramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vepadappu Rama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh