Disposed¶40

Ramavath Laya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2025WP/25976/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 25976 of 2025; family members certificate; application FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025; Tahsildar Kadapa Mandal; YSR Kadapa; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21; The Government of India v. P. Venkatesh (2019) 15 SCC 613; dispose-by-consideration orders disservice justice; live vs stale issue; direction to examine thoroughly and communicate decision within four weeks; Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' application for family members certificate (No. FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025), examine it thoroughly, issue orders accordingly and communicate the decision within four weeks; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶40

Ramavath Laya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents, specifically the 4th respondent, in not issuing the family members certificate to the petitioners vide application No. FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025 is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the 4th respondent ought to be directed to issue the certificate.

¶20

Court's answer

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' application for issuance of the family members certificate (No. FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025), examine it thoroughly, issue orders accordingly and communicate the decision to the petitioners, completing the entire process within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders merely directing consideration of an application results in quick or easy disposal in overburdened adjudicatory institutions, but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226, Constitution of India) by two daughters of the late Ramavath Arjun Naik seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the 4th respondent Tahsildar's non-issuance of a family members certificate (application No. FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025) illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21. Relying on The Government of India v. P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613, the Court observed that disposing of matters through bare orders directing 'consideration' makes for quick disposal but does disservice to the cause of justice, and that a court directing consideration should satisfy itself that the issue is live and not stale, making clear that consideration is without prejudice to contentions on limitation, delay and laches. Directing the respondents to consider the application, examine it thoroughly, pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision within four weeks, the Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010488462025

¶2

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

¶3

[3330]

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 25976 of 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

RAMAVATH LAYA, D/O LATE RAMAVATH ARJUN NAIK AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O H. NO. 42-137, NGO COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

RAMAVATH SHREYA, D/O LATE RAMAVATH ARJUN NAIK AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O H. NO. 42-137, NGO COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, KADAPA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DEPUTY GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANG, KURNOOL.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more specifically, the 4th respondent in not issuing the family members certificate to the petitioners vide application No.

¶21

¶22

FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Art.14, 19, 21 of constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 4th respondent to issue family members certificate to petitioners vide application No. FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR HOME

¶27

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶32

“… to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more specifically, the 4^th respondent in not issuing the family members certificate to the petitioners vide application No.FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Art.14, 19, 21 of constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 4th respondent to issue family members certificate to petitioners vide application No.FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025 and pass such other orders…”

¶33

In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India Vs. P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that:

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the 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."

¶38

Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of application 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.

¶39

However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' application for issuance of family members certificate, vide application No.FAMC012503625758 dated 14.05.2025, examine the same thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40