Allowed

M/S P S Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2021WP/4854/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging a non-speaking revision order. It held that quasi-judicial orders must record reasons and follow natural justice. The order was set aside and remitted with directions to give the petitioner a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 19.11.2019 set aside and matter remitted to 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order after giving due opportunity of hearing.

M/S P S Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 4854 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

¶5

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in dismissing/passing of non speaking orders in the revision in Memo No.9892/M.I(1)/2018-4, dated 19.11.2019, inconsonance with the demand notice No.2393 (44)/V&E/2016, dated 10.12.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent without considering the case of the petitioner nor giving any opportunity of personal hearing as well as without considering the evidence produced by her, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially stay of operation of the said memo...”

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner states that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 31.07.2020 passed in W.P.No.12949 of 2020 by this Court.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader did not refute the said submission.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner it is evident that the impugned proceedings are contrary to the settled law, where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be

¶10

¶11

supported by reasons. But in the instant case, the impugned order is passed without giving any findings except extracting the grounds raised by the petitioner and the report submitted by the administrative authorities. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions, the impugned order dated 19.11.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for passing appropriate orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the revision by the 2^nd respondent, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for remitting the amounts pursuant to the demand notice No.2393 (44)/V&E/2016, dated 10.12.2018 of the respondent No.4.

¶12

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 31.07.2020 passed in WP No.12949 of 2020 by this Court. No costs. Registry to attach a copy of the order in W.P.No.12949 of 2020 to this order.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date : 01.03.2021

SPP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

Writ Petition No.4854 of 2021

¶20

Date : 01.03.2021

¶21

SPP

M/S P S Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S P S Rao 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

Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Ap

M/s Psk Infrastructure and Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Ushodaya Granites, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chopparapu Vara Lakshmi, Vs Smt.v.Usha Rani

Venkatesh Deva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh