Disposed

K Sravani v. Union of India and 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Nov 2021WP/1983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition under Article 226, referring to the Apex Court's caution against directing quick disposal of cases. Despite such caution, the court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2018 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents to dispose of the representation dated 04.12.2018 within four weeks from today. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

K Sravani Vs Union of India and 5 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION.No.1983 of 2019

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“to issue a Writ or Order more in nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 4^th respondent and 5^th respondents in not disposing the representations dated: 4.12.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and consequentially direct the 4^th and 5^th respondents to dispose the representations dated: 4.12.2018, before retiring 6^th respondent and pass such other order.”

¶7

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 of the petitioner dated: 04.12.2018.

¶8

Learned Assistant Solicitor General readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated:04.12.2018, if any pending with the authorities.

¶9

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General, 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. Venkatesh” , 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 requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated

¶10

¶11

04.12.2018, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶12

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated: 04.12.2018 within four (4) weeks from today. No costs.

¶13

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

¶14

________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶15

29.11.2021 SP/SSP

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURHY

¶18

WRIT PETITION.No.1983 of 2019

Date: 29.11.2021

SP/SSP

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶37

02.11.2021 ssp

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶39

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.20976 OF 2021

¶41

01.11.2021

¶42

ssp

K Sravani v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sravani v. Union of India and 5 Others

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

O v Chiranjeevi Vs the State of Ap

Boya Dealer Ayyyanna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk Ahmed Basha Vs Ysr Horticultural University

L.S. Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Ap

P. Subramanyeswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Mastan Bi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh