Madapani Durga, vs B.N.V.D.Koteswara Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 1002 AP

     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.

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