Disposed

Alln Suresh Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Oct 2021WP/32323/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought relief regarding encroachment and illegal construction by the 4th respondent. The court observed that while such directions can clog adjudicatory bodies, no alternative existed. It disposed of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2017 pending with them within four weeks.

Alln Suresh Kumar, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.32323 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in taking immediate and appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dt.26.08.2017 against the 4th respondent for encroachment of the property of the petitioner to an extent of 240 Sq. Yards situated R.S. No.102/1 of A.Annavaram Grain Panchayat, Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and making illegal and unauthorized construction in between East: Nakka Sathiabu, South: Nambaru Tata Rao, West: Road and North: Road as illegal, arbitrary, unjust against the principles of natural justice and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.26.08.2017 and take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent for the said unauthorized construction in violation of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules 2002, Rule 25 and 26 and Part A of Layout Rules 3 (6) and (7) and to pass such othe r orders”.

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramoju N.V.S.K.Acharyulu, requested this Court without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 26.08.2017 submitted by the petitioner.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 26.08.2017 submitted by the petitioner, if any pending with the respondent authorities.

¶8

¶9

In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.

¶10

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 not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 26.08.2017 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of , directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 26.08.2017 submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the respondent authorities, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from today. No costs.

¶12

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 28.10.2021 sj

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY