R v Seshaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 ^ the Constitution of India praying that in the mstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus particularly, one declaring the acfion of the 3-respondent in not deciding the Revision Pew,on No.101/1993 to set aside the Memo No.B/43/83 dated 29-5 as bad Illegal, arbitrary, absurd, violative of

¶20

principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Memo dated 29-5-1987. lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'“ respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22-7-2021 in terms of the complainant's letter dated 30-12-2016.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T. VENU GOPAL SC FOR

¶23

ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) The Court made the following order:

¶24

1^;

¶25

APHC010047172022

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3458]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 3379 OF 2022

¶33

Between:

¶34

1.R.V. SESHAIAH SHARMA, S/0. ATCHAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS,^OCC. ARCHAKA IN SRI MAHANANDEESWARA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶38

2.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶39

SRI MAHANANDEESWARA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DISTRICT REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: D VSASIDHAR

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S): G RAMANA RAO

¶43

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶46

2

¶47

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3'“ respondent is not deciding the Revision Petition No. 101 of 1993 pursuant to the directions of the Additional Commissioner, Endowments Department. 3. It IS contended that the petitioner was appointed as an archaka on 18.06.1985 on payment of consolidated wages. Subsequently pay scale was extended. He filed writ petition(s) seeking UDC scales and to pay regular scales on par with similarly situated persons. The same are stated to be pending. However, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 29.05.1987 on a complaint stated to have been filed by the petitioner’s wife. The said dismissal was subject matter of a Revision Petition, and the same was dismissed on 18.07.1991. Challenging the order passed in revision petition, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of on 10.11.1993, granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the Commissioner of Endowments. The Revision thus filed was also dismissed. Challenging the said order again a writ petition in W.P.No. 16920 of 2002 was filed. The said writ petition was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner herein filed writ appeal in W.A.No.1692 of 2003 taken up by the Additional Commissioner of the Endowments Department. The Writ appeal was disposed of directing the revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition within three months. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 26.10.2004, disposed of the Revision Petition directing the 3^'^ respondent to re-enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to all the parties. Till such time

¶48

3

¶49

the order of the High Court dated 21.10.2003 in W.A.No.1692^of2003would continue to operate.

¶50

It is further contended that it has been more than 20 years since the matter has been remanded to the 3'^'^ respondent. However, the 3'^'^ respondent did not pass appropriate orders pursuant to the remand.^{Thepetitionerhas} approached the authority brining to their notice the compromise^that was entered into by him with his wife and the subsequent^{demiseofthepetitioner’s} wife. However no orders have been passed. Hence the writ petition.

¶51

The 3'"^ respondent filed counter-affidavit stating he has joined^recently rd and the issue is pertaining to the year and issue is pending before the³ respondent.

¶52

Having regard to the submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3'^^ respondent to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration^{therepresentationsofthe} petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the^{dateofreceiptofcopyofthe} order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to^{thepetitioner.} Till such time, the following observations made by the Additional^{Commissionerwhile} disposing of the revision petition would continue:

¶53

Till such a decision is taken by the respondent, the^ordersof the High Court, dated 21.10.2003 in W.A.No.1692 of^2003shall continue to operate’

¶54

4

¶55