The Palamakula Primary ... vs G. Muralidhar And 8 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 592 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                              AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                WRIT APPEAL No.162 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for

the   appellant;    Mr.   G.Simhadri,   learned    counsel   for

respondent      Nos.1,    2   and   3/writ   petitioners;    and

Ms. G.Jyothi Kiran, learned Government Pleader for

Agriculture & Co-operation Department representing

respondent Nos.4 to 9.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

07.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of Writ Petition No.25877 of 2021 filed by respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 3 as the petitioners.

3. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 had filed the related

writ petition praying for the following relief:

                                    2                   HCJ & NTRJ
                                                 W.A.No.162 of 2023

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandmus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuation of the Watch Register of Prohibition and Restrained Orders dated 24/04/2015 annexed schedule properties in Sy. No. 226(woo) dry Land an extent of Ac.0-15 gts, Sy. No. 219(Eeea) Dry Land an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts, Sy. No. 214(Aa-2) Dry Land an extent of Ac.1-04 gts, Sy. No. 241(Aa-1) Dry Land an extent of Ac.1-05 gts, Sy. No. 220(Aa) Dry Land an extent of Ac.0-15 gts, Sy. No. 218(Eee) Dry Land an extent of Ac.2-05 gts, Sy. No. 217(Aa) Dry Land an extent of Ac.0-27 gts, Sy. No. 215(Eee-1) Dry Land an extent of Ac.0-38 gts, Sy. No. 215(Aa) Dry Land an extent of Ac.3-28 gts, even though, Major Surcharge Order Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 10 were set-aside by the Honourable Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad in CTA No.16/2016 dated 25/11/2016 is illegal, Arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and unconstitutional and further violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India and consequential direct the respondents to enter the Petitioners names in the Dharani (Portal) Registrar."

4. Thus, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 sought for a

writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official

respondents in continuing the aforesaid land in the Watch 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.162 of 2023

Register of Prohibition and Restrained Orders despite

setting aside of the same by the Cooperative Tribunal as

illegal and arbitrary.

5. However, without entering into the merits or

demerits of the case, learned Single Judge disposed of the

writ petition in the following manner:

"Having regard to the nature of relief claimed in the writ petition, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being submitted, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks thereafter duly affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing."

6. From the above we find that learned Single

Judge had granted liberty to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to

submit a fresh representation before the competent

authority within a period of two weeks and on such

representation being submitted, the competent authority 4 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.162 of 2023

has been directed to consider the same and pass necessary

order thereon in accordance with law within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation

after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

7. Learned Government Pleader submits that

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 had submitted the

representation not within the prescribed period but much

thereafter. In fact, there is a delay of about one year.

Competent authority is in the process of passing

appropriate order including on the point of delay in filing

the representation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the order of the Cooperative Tribunal in CTA No.16/2016

dated 25.11.2016 is under challenge in a writ petition

before this Court being W.P.No.45038 of 2016. Therefore,

the related writ petition may be heard along with the

aforesaid writ petition.

                                5                    HCJ & NTRJ
                                              W.A.No.162 of 2023

9. We are afraid such a course of action does not

commend to us in as much as in the present appeal, our

examination is confined only to the legality and validity of

the impugned direction of the learned Single Judge.

10. In the given facts and circumstances of the

case, we do not find any error or infirmity in the approach

of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.

11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.02.2023 KL