Disposed

Shaik Syavali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2020WP/24293/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus directing authorities to act on a representation. Bench directed the government representative to initiate disposal of the pending representation within four weeks, avoiding adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 12.11.2020 within four weeks from the date of the order.

Shaik Syavali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.24293 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in disposing of the representation dated 12.11.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action on the representation dated 12.11.2020 of the petitioner and pass such other order.”

¶5

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 12.11.2020.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2020, if any, pending with the respondent authorities.

¶7

In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-III, 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. As the learned counsel for the

¶8

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶9

¶10

petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 12.11.2020 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 12.11.2020, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from today. No costs.

¶12

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

¶13

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

Date: 22.12.2020 IS

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 24293 OF 2020

¶18

Date: 22-12-2020 IS

Shaik Syavali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Syavali v. The 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 v Dp Kumar Vs the State of Ap

Y.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sidum Sukesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Venkatesh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CherukuruBabavalli, Vs The Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Yettapu Padmavathamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh