Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yanduru Venkata Narasimha Rao, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 21 January, 2022
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.44523 OF 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on
the part of the Respondents 2 to 7 on the petitioners
representation dt.08.12.2016 submitted to close the
Borewell illegally excavated by the 8th respondent on the
eastern side of his house and site property admeasuring 325
square yards bearing Door No.1292 situated near
Pogadachetla Mandapam in Agiripalli Gram Panchayat and
Mandal of Krishna District, as illegal, irregular, amounts to
non discharge of legal obligation conferred under the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Water Land and Trees Act,
2002 and Rules framed there under and offends Articles 14
of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the
Respondents 2 to 7 to close the said bore well and
disconnect power supply to the said bore well being availed
stealthily by the 8th respondent and pass such other order
or orders."
Though the petitioner made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, Mr.D.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of the representation
dated 08.12.2016 made by the petitioner, without touching the
merits of the case.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for
respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated
08.12.2016 submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the
respondent-authorities.
4. Recording the submissions of the learned 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 not
serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner
himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the
representation dated 08.12.2016 submitted by the petitioner, I find
no other alternative, except to issue such direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to dispose of the representation dated 08.12.2016
submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is pending. No costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 21.01.2022
PKR
2019 (8) SCALE 544
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.44523 OF 2016
Date:21.01.2022
PKR
