Dismissed

Smt. Boddapati Nirmala, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jul 2021WP/3100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 regarding revenue records, the Court did not decide the merits but issued a direction for the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's specific application No.RMU012106151743 within four weeks, a directive requested by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of petitioner's application No.RMU012106151743 within four weeks from the date of the order.

Smt. Boddapati Nirmala, Vs The State of Andhra… — RTI and Transparency | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.3100 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

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

¶4

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not changing the web revenue records in Column No.12 and 13 of the Web Adangal/ Pahani to the name of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and also against the norms of the public policy and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to rectify the web revenue records column No.12 and 13 and issue the Patadhar passbooks in favour of the petitioners.”

¶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 petitioner’s application No.RMU012106151743 dated 25.01.2021.

¶6

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 25.01.2021, if any, pending with the authorities.

¶7

In view of the submission of the 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

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

MSM,J WP_3100_2021

application No.RMU012106151743 dated 25.01.2021, 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 petitioner’s application No. No.RMU012106151743 dated 25.01.2021, in accordance with law, 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

19.07.2021 Ksp

Smt. Boddapati Nirmala, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Boddapati Nirmala, 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

Vankivolu Tirupal Reddy Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Vemana Ramanaiah Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Akula Sravan Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jujjavarapu Srinu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Avula Uma Maheswara Rao Vs State of Ap

S K Mastan Vali Vs S Sanjeeva Reddy