IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.88 of 2021
(Through video conferencing)
Madapani Durga, W/o. Venkata Satyanarayana ... Appellant
Versus
BNVD Koteswara Rao, and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Siva Sankar Rao Borra
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Ramesh Babu
Counsel for respondents 2 to 4: G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development
Counsel for respondents 5 & 8 : G.P. for Revenue
Counsel for respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy, Standing
Counsel
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt:19.02.2021 (ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ) We have heard Mr. Siva Sankar Rao Borra, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Govt. Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for respondents 2 to 4, learned Govt. Pleader for Revenue for respondents 5 & 8 and Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 & 7.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12338 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though appellant was arrayed as respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition, no notice was served upon her, but the Writ Petition came to be disposed of and thereby principles of natural justice have not been followed. 2
4. We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge and in paragraphs 5 & 6, it is recorded as follows:
"5. Learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat on instructions submits that already they have issued notice to respondent No.8 and they will follow due process.
6. In the light of the above, the official respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 10.07.2020 and 13.07.2020 made by the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.8, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law."
5. While the contention of the appellant is that no notice was given to her, what cannot be lost sight of the fact is that, by the order passed by the learned single Judge, no prejudice is caused to the appellant, as the direction of the learned single Judge was that representation of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner dated 10.07.2020 and 13.07.2020 are to be considered only after giving opportunity to the appellant (8th respondent).
6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, in the absence of any prejudice caused to the appellant, no interference is called for with the order under appeal and, accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J MRR