M/S Annapoorna Financiers, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4281 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2020
ORDER:

M/s. Annapoorna Financiers, registered partnership firm

represented by Joint Managing Partner Gogineni Sudhakara Rao

filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the Endorsement of

Respondent No.3 vide R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and

Endorsement of Respondent No.4 vide R.C.No.1666/2018/CS

dated 29.10.2018 in refusing to update the record of rights and

issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac.12-

76 cents in Sy.Nos.157, 137/1 and 137/2 of Pallapukodabu and

Ac.2-08 cents in Sy.No.16 of Thamarabba villagesd of Devarapalli

Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of

the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar

Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short „the Act‟) and The Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short „the

Rules‟) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and

consequently set-aside the endorsements issued by Respondent

Nos. 3 & 4 and direct Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to update the record

of rights and issue pattadar passbooks in respect of the

agricultural land of this petitioner.

One Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi

approached this petitioner, borrowed an amount of Rs.69 lakhs on

three different occasions, executed three promissory notes and

deposited the title deeds, created mortgage by deposit of title

deeds. Both Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya MSM,J WP_72_2020

Lakshmi failed to discharge the mortgage debt. Thereupon the

petitioner filed O.S.No.142 of 2009 on the file of I Additional

District Judge, Visakhapatnam against both Kodali Srinivas Rao

and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi, the mortgagers, for recovery of

the amount due under the mortgage by sale of property.

A preliminary decree and final decree were passed for sale of

the property. Thereupon, an execution petition in E.P.No.16 of

2017 was filed and brought the property for sale. The decree holder

having obtained permission to bid and set off, was declared as

highest bidder and the Executing Court issued sale certificate. The

petitioner filed E.A.No.78 of 2018 for delivery of property and

accordingly through process of the Court, the property was

delivered to this petitioner on 20.09.2018.

On acquisition of right in immovable property in compliance

of Section 4 of the Act, intimation was given to Respondent No.4,

who in-turn issued Endorsement directing the petitioner to file an

appeal before Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.3 by

proceedings, directed to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds

subject to the result in O.S.No.5 of 2019 filed by the unofficial

respondents. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.23 of 2019 along with

I.A.No.45 of 2019 against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 before the

competent civil court and obtained permanent injunction,

restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with

possession and enjoyment of the property.

The main contention of the petitioner is that, when the

petitioner acquired right in immovable property, an intimation is to

be made under Section 4(1) of the Act to mutate the name of this MSM,J WP_72_2020

petitioner in the revenue records. Accordingly, he submitted an

intimation through online, but the same was rejected by

Respondent No.4 while advising this petitioner to prefer an appeal,

since the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were already recorded

in the revenue records along ago, the names of the petitioners

cannot be mutated in the revenue records.

Aggrieved by the order, an appeal is preferred before

Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn issued

peculiar direction to mutate the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8,

instead of passing an order on the application of this petitioner,

which is illegal and arbitrary. At the same time, Respondent Nos. 3

& 4 violated the procedure prescribed under the Act and such

Endorsements cannot be sustained in law; therefore, sought a writ

of mandamus as stated above.

The unofficial respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 filed

counter affidavit raising the following conditions:

The first and foremost contention raised by Respondent Nos.

5 to 8 is that, writ petition is not maintainable, in view of

availability of alternative remedy under the Act and on this ground

alone, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioners purchased land in an extent of Ac.10-00

cents in Sy.No.157, Ac.1-30 cents in Sy.No.137/1, Ac.1-31 cents in

Sy.No.137/2, Ac.3-07 cents in Sy.No.137/4, Ac.1-13 ½ cents in

Sy.No.151-2 of Pallapu Kodabu village, Devarapalli Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District; Ac.2-08 cents in Sy.No.16, Ac.0-50 cents

in Sy.No.15/3 and Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.15/5 of Thambarabbu MSM,J WP_72_2020

village, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, totaling an extent of

Ac.19-89 ½ cents along with certain extent of land owned by

Kodali Srinivasa Rao and his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi. Kodali

Srinivasa Rao and his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi jointly sold the

above mentioned land to Mr. Adireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs.

Adireddy Venkatalakshmi under registered Sale Deed dated

15.02.12007 vide Document No.700/2007 and delivered

possession to them. Subsequently, Mr. Adireddy Nageswara Rao

and Mrs. Adireddy Venkatalakshmi executed a Registered General

Power of Attorney vide Document No.15 of 2007 in favour of

Nallamilli Venkata Reddy and two others on 15.05.2007 to deal

with the properties. The said General Power of Attorney holders

representing their principals sold the aforesaid property of Ac.19-

89 ½ cents to Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 vide different sale deeds vide

document numbers 419/2009, 420/2009, 421/2009, 422/2009

and 875/2010 on various dates. It is contended that, Respondent

Nos. 5 to 8 are closely related to one another and they are in

exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property jointly, raised

palm oil tope in the land.

It is contended that the Managing Partner of the petitioner

firm tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the

land alleging that the said property belongs to the firm and that

they have no right over the said property. One Mr. G. Venkata

Ramana filed O.S.No.245 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Chodavaram and Mr. Sudhakar filed his written

statement in the suit contending that his firm filed O.S.No.142 of

2009 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam MSM,J WP_72_2020

against his vendor‟s vendor alleging that they have created an

equitable mortgage by depositing their sale deed and the said suit

was decreed in favour of the firm. It is further contended that, the

suit is collusive and therefore, mutating the name of this petitioner

is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ

petition finally.

The official respondents did not file any counter affidavit.

During hearing, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 issued

Endorsements in violation of the procedure under Section 5 of the

Act and Rule 19 of the Rules. No opportunity was provided to make

representation before rejecting the request of this petitioner by

Respondent No.4. At the same time, Respondent No.3 also issued

the Endorsement to mutate the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 on

the application made by this petitioner, which is contrary to

Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ

petition is liable to be allowed, declaring the Endorsement of

Respondent No.3 vide R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and

Endorsement of Respondent No.4 vide R.C.No.1666/2018/CS

dated 29.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same, while

directing the respondents to mutate the name of this petitioner in

the revenue records.

Whereas, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.5 to 8 contended that, when an alternative remedy

is available to this petitioner and without exhausting alternative

remedy, the petitioner cannot approach this Court invoking

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart MSM,J WP_72_2020

from that, the Endorsements are totally in consonance with the

provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein and no irregularity

is committed by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in issuing those

Endorsements and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.

3 & 4 supported the impugned endorsements.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material

available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as

follows:

1. Whether the petitioner be non-suited on the sole ground that an alternative remedy by way of revision under the Andhra Pradesh rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971 is available to the petitioner?

2. Whether Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively followed the procedure in issuing Endorsements R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 respectively. If not, whether the Endorsements be declared as illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set-aside and consequential direction to mutate the name of this petitioner and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds be issued?

POINT Nos. 1 & 2:

As the two points are interconnected to each other, I find it

expedient to decide points by common discussion and record

findings.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner approached this Court without

exhausting alternative statutory remedy of revision under Section 9

of the Act. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 raised a specific

ground that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner MSM,J WP_72_2020

approached this Court without availing statutory remedy under the

Act. Undoubtedly, statutory remedy under Section 9 is available

against an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section

5(5) of the Act. But, that by itself is not a bar against exercise

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

In Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax and another1 the Division Bench

of the Apex Court held that, when a statutory remedy is available

under the statute, the Court would not normally entertain the writ

petition against assessment order. The Apex Court finally

concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the

dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which normally

would not be entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact

or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The assessee may

thus, not only lose a remedy of having the matter considered on

factual facets of the matter but would also stand deprived of

regular channels of challenges available to it under the hierarchy

of fora available under the Act.

In Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Chhabil

Dass Agarwal2 the Apex Court held as follows:

"Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially

(2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737

(2014) 1 SCC 603 MSM,J WP_72_2020

a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh3, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v.

State of Orissa4, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd5 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd6)

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a

statutory remedy is available against the endorsements under

challenge in the writ petition, the Court may not normally entertain

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is

purely discretionary in nature.

The Apex Court time and again laid down certain principles

as to under what circumstances the Court can exercise its power of

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

that there is no absolute bar to entertain such writ petitions, more

particularly, when the authorities passed an order in violation of

principles of natural justice or without considering any law or

without affording any opportunities to the parties.

In Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India7 the

Division Bench of Apex Court was called upon to decide whether

the existence of an alternate remedy would create a bar on High

Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, it held, "The existence of an

alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the

AIR 1958 SC 86

(1983) 2 SCC 433

(2003) 2 SCC 107

(2005) 6 SCC 499

Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 2019 @Special Leave Petition (C) No 29040 of 2018 dated 29.07.2019 MSM,J WP_72_2020

fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court‟s writ

jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on

the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court." Explaining

that the court added that courts had themselves imposed certain

constraints on the exercise of their writ jurisdiction to ensure that

the jurisdiction did not become an appellate mechanism for all

disputes within a High Court‟s territorial jurisdiction, the bench

said, "The intention behind this self-imposed rule is clear. If High

Courts were to exercise their writ jurisdiction so widely as to

regularly override statutory appellate procedures, they would

themselves become inundated with a vast number of cases to the

detriment of the litigants in those cases." This would also defeat

the legislature‟s intention in enacting statutory appeal mechanisms

to ensure the speedy disposal of cases. The mere existence of

alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does

not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ

jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High

Court amongst several factors.

Recently, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Radha

Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others8

summarized the following four principles governing the exercise of

writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate

remedy, despite availability of efficacious alternative statutory

remedy under the Act.

"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

2021 SCC OnLine SC 334 MSM,J WP_72_2020

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where a. the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

b. there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or c. the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

The same principles were reiterated by the Full Bench of the

Apex Court in M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Limited v. The

State of Bihar9.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgments referred supra, when an order was passed prima facie,

contrary to the law laid and violative of principles of natural

justice, this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. The bar is self imposed restriction,

however, in view of the principles laid down by Apex Court in the

judgments referred supra, entertaining the writ petition, despite

Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021 MSM,J WP_72_2020

availability of statutory remedy is purely discretionary and not an

absolute bar.

In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed

out that Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(3) read with Rule 19 of the Rules are

violated while issuing Endorsements impugned in the writ petition,

issued by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively. The respondents did

not state anything about compliance of these two provisions

prescribed under the statute. In view of the specific contention

urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to

advert to Section 4(1) of the Act. Any person acquiring by

succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta,

decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar,

mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring

any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate

in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue

Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and

the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written

acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person

making it. Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a

minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons

having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such

acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In compliance of

Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner sent intimation to the Mandal

Revenue Officer for mutation of the name of the petitioner.

According to Section 5(1) of the Act, i.e. Amendment and

updating of Record of Rights, on receipt of intimation of the fact of

acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal MSM,J WP_72_2020

Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what

manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence

therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights

in accordance with such determination, provided that no order

refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation

shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has

been given an opportunity of making his representation in that

behalf.

Thus, the first proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act mandates of

opportunity of making a representation to the applicant when the

recording authority decided to refuse the request for updating

entries in the revenue records and issue of pattadar passbooks and

title deeds. The proviso is nothing but affording an opportunity to

this petitioner by following principles of natural justice.

To put it differently, the procedure prescribed under the

proviso is nothing but a statutory prescription to issue notice

before refusing such requirement in compliance of Rule 5(1), as the

rule of principles of natural justice is imbedded in the proviso. In

the absence of compliance of proviso to Rule 5(1), it is nothing but

violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure

prescribed under Rule 5(1).

A bare look at the impugned order passed by Respondent

No.4, it is clear that, no notice was issued before passing such

Endorsements to this petitioner as mandated under Rule 5(1).

Therefore, issue of such Endorsement by Respondent No.4 is not

only illegality and contrary to the principles of natural justice, but

also contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under proviso MSM,J WP_72_2020

to Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the Court can exercise power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain a writ

petition against such an order.

Coming to the order passed by Respondent No.3, it is clear

that Respondent No.3 issued a direction, which reads as follows:

"In the said mater vide Memo Rc.No. 1135/2018/F/23-11-2018, Smt. Tetala Satyavathi W/o. Rama Reddy has submitted an appeal submitting her objections. On the ssaid appeal, Smt. Nallamilli Bullammayi and others, filed their counters and further filed a suit for declaration of title deeds sand seeking permanent injunction against Sri Gogineni Sudhakar vide O.S.No.05/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Choddavaram and the said matter is pending. In the same matter the Joint Managing Director Sri Gogineni Sudhakarrao S/o Appaiah, Annapurna Financier has obtained Injunction order vide I.A.No.45/2019 in O.S.No.23/2019. Hence, the Tahsildar, Devarapalli is hereby ordered to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the Joint Managing Pdartner Si Gogineni Suhakarrao S/o. Apaiah of Annapurna Financier, who has been issued pattadar books on being acquired he lands in Devarapalli Mandalam, Palledpukodabu and Thamarabba Revenue Sy.Nos. 157, 137/1, 137/2 Extent c.12.76 cts and Sy.No.16 Extent Ac.2.08 cents, in compliance of order of the VII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S.No.142/2009 being the auction purchaser in E.P.16/2017 having acquired rights for a total extent Ac.14.84 cents in the above survey numbers in consideration of the court orders in O.S.No.5/12019."

It is clear from the order that Respondent No.3 issued a

direction to Respondent No.4, to cancel the pattadar passbooks

issued in favour of this petitioner, in view of pendency of

O.S.No.142 of 2009 before the VII Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam, being the auction purchaser in E.P.No.16 of 2017

having acquired rights for a total extent of Ac.14-84 cents in the

above survey numbers in consideration of the court orders in

O.S.No.5 of 2019.

When the petitioner himself submitted an application which

was rejected and filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority,

instead of passing appropriate order, dismissed the appeal while

directing to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of this

petitioner without issuing any notice and without following the MSM,J WP_72_2020

procedure prescribed under Section 5(1) of the Act and it is

contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act.

The Tahsildar/Respondent No.4 herein in the impugned

Endorsement in the writ petition i.e. R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated

29.10.2018 intimated to the petitioner that, in respect of

petitioner‟s application survey numbers, the then Tahsildar has

granted pattadar pass books and title deeds and entered as wet

lands, such pattadar pass books have to be cancelled as per

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The power to cancel the pattadar

pass books vests with Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the

petitioner was informed vide R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated

29.10.2018 that with regard to the cancellation of granted pattadar

pass books in the name of cultivators vide Khata numbers shown

in the table of the Endorsement, that the petitioner may prefer an

appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act. But, the

Revenue Divisional Officer directed to cancel the pattadar pass

books issued in the name of this petitioner in the appeal preferred

against the order passed by the Tahsildar/Respondent No.4, which

is contrary to the procedure. Ven the objections made by

Respondent No.8 before the Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of

the notice cannot be treated as an application for issue of pattadar

passbooks in the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Therefore,

Respondent No.3 violated the procedure prescribed under law.

According to Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, against every

order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment

in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an

appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority MSM,J WP_72_2020

as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of

communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate

authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be

final.

When an appeal is preferred, a notice of hearing is to be

issued to this petitioner, affording an opportunity to the petitioner

to make his submissions regarding his claim. But, no such notice

was issued to this petitioner to putforth his objections. Hence, no

opportunity of hearing was afforded to this petitioner while

disposing of the appeal.

As discussed above, there is any amount of violation of

procedure prescribed under law, while passing Endorsements vide

R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and

R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 by Respondent Nos.3 & 4

respectively. When Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 grossly violated

mandatory procedure prescribed under law, which is not in the

nature of principles of natural justice, this Court can exercise

power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the

law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above.

Those two Endorsements are liable to be set-aside, declaring them

as illegal and arbitrary, but a positive direction cannot be issued to

mutate the name of this petitioner to issue pattadar passbook and

title deed in his favour, for the simple reason that a specific

procedure is prescribed both under Section 5 of the Act and Rules

17 to 19 of the Rules read with Rule 5(2)(a) to (e) of the Rules are to

be complied during enquiry. In those circumstances, the Court

may set-aside the Endorsements impugned in the writ petition and MSM,J WP_72_2020

direct Respondent No.4 to follow the procedure prescribed under

the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Hence, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable and the

Endorsements impugned in the writ petition i.e.

R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and

R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 issued by Respondent

Nos.3 & 4 respectively, are declared as illegal and arbitrary and

set-aside the endorsements; while directing Respondent No.4 to

reconsider the application strictly adhering to the procedure

prescribed under the Act and Rules, within eight (08) weeks from

the date of receipt of the order and pass reasoned orders strictly

adhering to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

In the result, writ petition is allowed-in-part, declaring the

Endorsements impugned in the writ petition i.e.

R.C.No.1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and

R.C.No.1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 issued by Respondent

Nos.3 & 4 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the

endorsements; while directing Respondent No.4 to reconsider the

application strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the

Act and Rules, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of

the order and pass reasoned orders strictly adhering to the

provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:25.10.2021 SP