Disposed

Harijan Ranga Swamy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020WP/4619/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2020. The court granted the prayer without deciding merits, relying on the counsel's concession and distinguishing the apex court's caution against such orders.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to dispose of the representation dated 10.02.2020 submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within four weeks from today.

Harijan Ranga Swamy Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.4619 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 2^nd respondent for not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner, dt.10-02-2020, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioner, dt.10-02-2020.”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation of petitioner dated 10.02.2020.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2020, if any, pending with the authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of 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. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 10.02.2020 submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶9

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶10

¶11

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 10.02.2020 submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from today. No costs.

¶12

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

¶13

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

Date: 27.02.2020 IS

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.4619 OF 2020

¶18

Date: 27-02-2020

¶19

Harijan Ranga Swamy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijan Ranga Swamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal Vs the State of Ap

Anangi Prasad Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gongati Syamsundara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaligineti Sudha Vs the State of Ap

V Lakshmi Narasamma Vs The Sate of Andhra Pradesh