Miduthuri Mary Leela Sarojini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9469 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9469 AP
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Miduthuri Mary Leela Sarojini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 December, 2022

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
                WRIT PETITION NO.39463 of 2022
Between:-

Miduthuri Mary Leela Sarojini & another                  .... Petitioners
                                       And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Assignment) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
& 3 others.                                              .... Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner         : Mrs.M.Siva Jyothi
Counsel for the Respondents        : Learned Govt. Pleader for Revenue

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings

dated 10.10.2022 passed by the 4th respondent on various grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the

averments made in the Writ Affidavit, inter alia, contends that pursuant

to the Notice dated 29.09.2022 issued to the petitioners under

Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioners

have submitted their objections/reply on 06.10.2022 to the

4th respondent. She submits that the 4th respondent the order, which is

impugned in the Writ Petition without assigning any reasons, much

less, by examining the reply/objections of the petitioner. The learned

counsel submits that the impugned proceedings is liable be to set aside

on that ground. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Masood

Ahmed Khan & Others1, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ

Petition as prayed for.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the

basis of written instructions dated 06.12.2022 received from the

4th respondent while refuting the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the 4th respondent

after due consideration of the matter had passed the order impugned

in the Writ Petition and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the

same. He also submits that the petitioners instead of availing the

alternative remedy of appeal filed the present Writ Petition and the

same is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the

Writ Petition.

2010 LawSuit (SC) 587

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused

the material on record. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioners the order impugned in the Writ Petition is bereft of any

reasons. The 4th respondent had not set out the reasons for arriving at

the conclusions, by considering objections/reply submitted by the

petitioner. Law in this regard, is well settled and the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, supports the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. In S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India2, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as follows:-

"36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would not doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of Law."