APHC010428172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22336/2025 Between: 1. SINGAMPALLI RAMBABU, S/O MATINAIDU, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O 7-1, MARRIPALEM, NATHAVARAM MANDAL, YELLAVARAM DONDAPETA, E.D.PETA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. STATE SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLY DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT), AT ANAKAPALLY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM DIVISION, ANAKAPALLY DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLY DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25-07-2025 in respect of threat of dispossession of his lawful agricultural land bearing Sy.No.11-2 admeasuring Ac.2- 88 cents situated at Vadaparthi Revenue, Golugonda Mandal, Anakapally District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25-07-2025 in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass 2 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25-07-2025 in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 22336 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25-07-2025 in respect of threat of dispossession of his lawful agricultural land bearing Sy.No.11-2 admeasuring Ac.2-88 cents situated at Vadaparthi Revenue, Golugonda Mandal, Anakapally District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25-07-2025 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that 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 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 4 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 25.07.2025 must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within eight weeks from the date the order is received. 5 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 : 28.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:22336 of 2025 Date : 28.08.2025 SPP