Telangana High Court
WP/2918/2003 of M.SURYA PRAKASH RAO KRISHNA* 5 Vs S.A.P. IRRIGATION DEPT HYDAND5 on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Wednesday, 27th day of December, 2006 W.P.No.2918 of 2003 Between: M. Surya Prakash Rao & others … Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by the Secretary and others … Respondents THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
Wednesday, 27thday of December, 2006
W.P.No.2918 of 2003
Between:
M. Surya Prakash Rao & others … Petitioners
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh,Irrigation Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad, rep. by the Secretaryand others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULUW.P.No.2918 of 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theOrder dated 28-1-2003 passed by the 2[nd] respondent-DistrictCollector, Krishna at Machilipatnam as arbitrary, illegal and violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India.
On the application of the petitioners for installation of a newpipeline 6” dia for supply of water to their fields, the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector has passed an Order in D.Dis.5799/2001, dated 16-1-2002. The said Order was passed after obtaining technicalopinion to instal new pipeline. Subsequently, some representationswere filed by neighbouring villagers and as such, further enquiry wasconducted. On the ground that if the earlier order is implemented,there will be a law and order problem; as such, further orders werepassed by cancelling the earlier order dated 16-1-2002. At the time ofadmission of Writ Petition, this Court has suspended the impugnedOrder by an Order dated 18-2-2003 and further directed to giveprotection for implementation of the Order dated 16-1-2002. Thereafter, a vacate petition was filed. After hearing both the parties,the interim order was made absolute on 23-6-2004.
The petitioners have asserted in the affidavit filed in support ofthe Writ Petition that no notice of any kind has been issued beforecancelling the earlier order dated 16-1-2002 by an Order dated 28-1-
2003. The said averment is not denied by the respondents in theircounter affidavits.
In the circumstances, the impugned Order dated 28-1-2003passed by the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector is in gross violation ofprinciples of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned Orderis liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, if thereis any necessity for reconsideration of the Order dated 16-1-2002, it isalways open for the 2[nd] respondent to issue proper notice to thepetitioners and pass orders afresh after hearing them.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Noorder as to costs.
prk
27-12-2006