::1:: APHC010136732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7183/2025 Between: V Lalitha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner for the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation dated 2.2.2025 made to the 2nd Respondent Public Grievance Redressal System vide Grievance ::2:: NO.TPT202502032938 dated 3-2-2025 with regard to encroachment of house site as arbitrary, illegal for extraneous considerations and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representation dated 2.2.2025 made to the 2nd Respondent Public Grievance Redressal System vide Grievance No.TPT202502032938, dated 3.2.2025 and take appropriate action in accordance with law...” 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 02.02.2025 of the Petitioner. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents readily agreed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.02.2025, if any pending with the authorities. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Respondents, this Court 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 no 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::3:: service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to consider the representation 02.02.2025, this Court 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 02.02.2025 of the Petitioner within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt: 21.03.2025 klk ::4:: 293 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7183 of 2025 21.03.2025 ::5:: klk