Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Naanubala Srinivasulu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep., ... on 28 December, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.22126 OF 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
""to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part
of the respondent No.4 in considering the representation dated
14.05.2015 submitted by the petitioners and also in granting
permission to lay pipe line through the lands in Sy.No.236/1,
1422 143/3 and 1466 of Apparajupalle Village fields, C.K Dinne
Mandal Y.S.R District enabling the petitioners to draw water to
the Lemon Garden in the land in an extent of Ac.1-16 cents in
Sy.No.180/A of Apparajupalle Village fields C.K.Dinne Mandal,
YSR District from the Borewell dug in the land in Sy.No.1460/3
of C K Dinne Village fields C.K Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R District
belong to the petitioners as arbitrary illegal and violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14,
19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondent No.4 to permit the petitioners to lay the pipeline
through the land in Sy.No.236/1, 1422, 143/3 and 1466 of
Apparajupalle Village fields C K Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R District."
Though the petitioners made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners
requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to
issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation
dated 14.05.2015.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily
agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated
14.05.2015, if any pending with the authorities.
In view of the submission of the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or
otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is
conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in "The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1",
wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick
or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions.
But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned
counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to
dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 14.05.2015, I
find no other alternative except to issue such direction.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to dispose of the representation dated 14.05.2015
within four (04) weeks from today. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 13.12.2021
SP
2019 (8) SCALE 544
