Bhuvanasi Prabhudas Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010457272025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDA Y ,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23204/2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHUVANASI PR A BHUDAS, S/o. LATE RAMAIAH, A G ED 55 YEARS, R/o. D. N o. 2-168, SC COLONY, BASAVA P URAM VILLAGE, MUN D LAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST R ICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

STATE OF AN D HRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRI N CIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. REVENUE DEPART M ENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, G U NTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

DISTRICT COLL E CTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ON G OLE. 3. TAHSILDAR, M UNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRA K ASAM DISTRICT.

¶12

KELLAMPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, B A SAVAPURAM VILLAGE, MUNDL A MURU MANDAL, PRAK A SAM DISTRICT.

¶13

MALAPATI ANJAMMA, W/O. CHENNAIAH, AGED AB O UT 50 YEARS, R/O. B A SAVAPURAM VILLAGE, MUNDL A MURU MANDAL, PRAK A SAM DISTRICT.

¶14

KILARI VENKAT A RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 Y E ARS, R/O. BASAVAPURAM VI L LAGE, MUNDLAMURU M ANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

2

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents on my representation dated 04.08.2025 submitted for removal of encroachments made by the respondents 5 and 6 by way of erection of Gate on the Bandi Dari covered by LP No.361 (Old Sy.No.54-1) situated in Basavapuram Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, thereby blocking my passage on to the road for ingress and egress to my house and landed property, as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to remove the said encroachments being made on the road(Bandi Dari) by the respondents 5 and 6 and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the ground that a representation was made to the District Collector, Prakasam District, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India and another vs P. Venkatesh¹ held that:

¶27

Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute.

¶28

This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation, should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the

¶29

1 (2019) 15 SCC 613

¶30

4

¶31

Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."

¶32

Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice.

¶33

However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation, examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶35

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶36

Date: 06.10.2025 Harin

¶37

5

¶38

99

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶40

W.P.No. 23204 OF 2025