Allowed

K. Parasanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2021WP/2699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Bench directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within eight weeks. Court decided on limited grounds to avoid deciding merits, relying on Supreme Court precedent that quick orders hinder justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2019 within eight weeks. No order as to costs.

K. Parasanna, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.2699 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

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

¶4

“……pleased to issue appropriate writ, Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in considering the representation of petitioner dated 14.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass…..”

¶5

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri B.Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation, dated 14.11.2019, submitted by the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.11.2019, if any, pending with the respondent authorities.

¶7

In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, 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 case of The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ , wherein

¶8

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶9

¶10

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 respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation, dated 14.11.2019, 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 respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.11.2019, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date : 4.2.2021 AMD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.2699 OF 2021

¶19

Date : 04.02.2021

¶20

AMD

K. Parasanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Parasanna, 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

Smt. Samanthakurthi Ramalaxmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Jupalli Radhika, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Atchi Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gmp Swaroop Vs the State of Ap

Differently Abled Employees Association Andhra Pradesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Sujatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh