Disposed

Kakuturu Ravindra Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2022WP/7625/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge cited Govt of India v P Venkatesh to direct respondents to dispose of petitioners' representations regarding the closure of a public well, finding no other alternative for justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of representations dated 02.02.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 within four weeks.

Kakuturu Ravindra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.7625 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“to issue a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 to 4th respondents 1 to 4 not taking any action with respect to the representation of the petitioners dated 2.2.2017, 18.2.2017 and 20.2.2017 to stop the closing the public well as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principals of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Municipal corporation Act and WALTA Act and consequently direct the 2d and 3rd respondents to restore the public well and its surrounding place for utilization of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders ”.

¶6

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners limited their request to dispose of the representations dated 02.02.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 made by the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶8

Revenue, appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representations dated 02.02.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 submitted by the petitioners, if any, pending with the respondentauthorities.

¶9

Recording the submissions 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

¶10

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶11

¶12

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 petitioners requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations 02.02.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 02.02.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if it is pending. No costs.

¶14

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

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date: 04.03.2022 SSP

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.7625 OF 2017

¶20