APHC010415252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21464/2025 Between: 1. LANKA ANIBICENT, D/O LATE LANKA RAVI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O LANKA RAVI COMPLEX, RTC COMPLEX, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, IGRS OFFICE, TADEPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUBREGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents in not considering representation dated 20-12-2024 filed by the petitioner and documents were registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Ramachandrapuram, affecting Ac. 13.00 and Ac.4.00 of our land in different survey numbers as being illegal besides contrary to Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no 2 to 4 authorities to register and consider the representation dated on 20.12.2024 of the petitioner and to issue the cancelling of the registrations and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court 2 may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 20-12-2024 filed by the petitioner and documents were registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Ramachandrapuram, affecting Ac.13.00 and Ac.4.00 of our land in different survey numbers and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 21464 of 2025 ORDER: The present 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 nature of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 20.12.2024 filed by the petitioner and documents were registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Ramachandrapuram, affecting Ac.13.00 cents and Ac.4.00 cents of petitioner’s land in different survey numbers, as being illegal besides contrary to Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 authorities to register and consider the representation dated on 20.12.2024 of the petitioner and to issue the cancelling of the registrations and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that a representation was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 3. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that: Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do 4 not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. 4. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." 5. Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice. 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2024 must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without 5 saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of the order is received. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 14.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:21464 of 2025 Date : 14.08.2025 SPP