IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No. 821 of 2021
(Proceedings through physical mode)
B. Rammohan Reddy
S/o. late B. Venkataramana Reddy,
Hindu, R/o. 111-154-11-5-1A,
Prasanthnagar, Madanapalli,
Chittoor District. .. Appellant/
Respondent No.9
Versus
Vagdevi Educational Society,
Rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent
B. Sasivardhan Reddy
S/o. Krishna Reddy, aged 30 years,
O/o. D.No.111-145-8-A-16-A,
Prasanthnagar, 2nd Cross,
Madanapalli, Chittoor District
and others. .. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. D.Vijaya Chandra Reddy
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 9 : Government Pleader for
Higher Education.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 15.12.2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.4400 of 2021 filed by respondent No.1 herein questioning the inaction of respondent No.5 herein (respondent No.4 in the writ petition) in appointing a Special Officer by suspending the management of Sri Krishna Chaitanya College of Pharmacy, College of Physiotherapy, College of Nursing and School of Nursing established by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner society, 2 despite representation dated 21.12.2020 submitted by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner society.
2. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.5/respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 21.12.2020 submitted by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner society, after affording a personal hearing to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and all other concerned, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is respondent No.9 in the writ petition, is aggrieved for the reason that the respondent No.5/respondent No.4 is not the competent authority having jurisdiction in any law to decide such representation. However, taking shelter of the order passed by the writ court, the respondent No.5/respondent No.4 may pass orders adverse to the interest of the appellant/respondent No.9 and interfere in the working of the college administration.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.9, we deem it appropriate to observe that before deciding the representation of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner society on merits, the respondent No.5/respondent No.4 shall advert to the issue concerning his jurisdiction to decide the said representation. The respondent No.5/respondent No.4 shall proceed to pass orders on merits only when he is vested with any statutory powers. If the respondent No.5/respondent No.4 reaches to the conclusion that he has power under some enactment to decide the issue raised in the representation preferred by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, he shall hear all the parties and pass a reasoned order at the time of deciding the representation.
3
5. With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J GM 4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT APPEAL No. 821 of 2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) Dt: 15.12.2021 GM