Allowed

B.Subba Rayudu v. State of Andhra. Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Dec 2020WP/22955/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226. Relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding the cause of justice, the judge directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within one month without adjudicating the merits of the initial claims.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2020 within one month.

B.Subba Rayudu Vs State of Andhra. Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.22955 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶4

“to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the

¶5

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents on petitioner’s representations dt.05.10.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, biased, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to grant reimbursement of Rs.3,80,406/- by extending the reimbursement scheme as per G.O.Rt.No.321 dt.16-07-2020 and to pass such other order or orders..”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Kamala Rani, requested this Court without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 05.10.2020.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.10.2020, if any, pending with the respondents authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services, 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

¶9

¶10

in the case of 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. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 05.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶11

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 05.10.2020, in accordance with law, within a month from today. No costs.

¶12

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

¶13

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 29.12.2020

AKN

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.22955 OF 2020

¶20

Date: 29-12-2020 AKN

B.Subba Rayudu v. State of Andhra. Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Subba Rayudu v. State of Andhra. Pradesh

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

M Sai Ram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Sunil Kumar Reddy Vs Appsc

Mallela Chandra Sekhar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakaraparthi Krishna Kishore Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Medapureddi Sanyasi Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Ashok, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director