Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6030/2016 of SMT.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs STATE OF AP,PRL.SCY,REVENUE,HYD,AND 9 on 31 December 2021
SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.6030 OF 2016 ORDER: This 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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.6030 OF 2016
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.
ORDER:
This 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 of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in taking disciplinary action against the respondents 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 pursuant to the representation given by the petitioner on 07.09.2015 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Art 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order..”
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, M/s Rachana S.Waddepalli, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of representation, dated 07.09.2015pending before respondent authorities, without touching the merits of the case.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation, dated 07.09.2015, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities.
4. Recording the submissions made by 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.Venkatesh[1]”, 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 noservice to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation, dated 07.09.2015pending before respondent authorities, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to dispose of the representation, dated 07.09.2015 pending before him, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 31.12.2021 psr
115
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
(disposed of)
WRIT PETITION No.6030 OF 2016
Date: 31.12.2021
Psr.