APHC010432862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22700 OF 2025 Between: Kollabathula Bangaru Papa, W/o. Late Rahul Raju @ Dharma Rao, Aged about 58 years, R/o, D.No. 66-1-3, Ambedkar Street, Narasamma Nagar, S. Atchutapuram, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, Formerly East Godavari District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada. 4. The Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban Kakinada, Kakinada District. 5. Jakkala Sri Vidya Kalyani, W/o. Kameswara Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No. 68-1-5, Nethaji Veedhi, Karanamgari Junction, Ashok Nagar, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada District. 6. Kollabathula Mary Satya Vivechana, W/o. Late Rahul Raju, aged about 51 years, R/o. D.No. 1-19, Ambedkar Nagar, S. Athcutapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District. ...Respondents 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction the Respondents 2 to 4 in considering the petitioners representation dated 08-11-2024 and application dated 19-03-2024 for issuance of a Family Member Certificate including her name as the legally wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and direct respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a proper inquiry and issue a fresh family member Certificate including the petitioners wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju within a fixed timeframe. name as the legally lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to conduct a proper inquiry on petitioner’s representation dated 08-11-2024 and issue the said the Certificate within a fixed timeframe. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order: %- APHC010432862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] H. FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22700/2025 Between: 1.KOLLABATHULA BANGARU PAPA,, W/0 LATE RAHUL RAJU @DHARMARAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 66-1- 3, AMBEDKAR STREET, NARASAMMA NAGAR, S. ATCHUTAPURAM, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND ESTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR SECRETARY, BUILDINGS DISTRICT. 2.THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KAKINADA URBAN KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5.JAKKALA SRI VIDYA KALYANl, W/0 KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 68-1-5, NETHAJI VEEDHI, KARANAMGARI JUNCTION, ASHOK NAGAR, KAKINADA URBAN, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6.KOLLABATHULA MARY SATYA VIVECHANA, W/0 LATE RAHUL RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 1-19, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, S.ATHCUTAPURAM VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANUAL, KAKINADA 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction the Respondents 2 to 4 in considering the petitioners representation dated 08-11-2024 and application dated 19-03-2024 for issuance of a 2 f ? ■ Family Member Certificate including her name as the legally wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and direct respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a proper inquiry and issue a fresh family member Certificate including the petitioner’s name as the legally wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju within a fixed timeframe and pass lA 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 Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to conduct a proper inquiry on the petitioner’s representation dated 08-11-2024 and issue the said Certificate within a fixed timeframe and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 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. 22700 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction the Respondents 2 to 4 In considering the petitioners representation dated 08-11-2024 and application dated 19.03.2024 for Issuance of a Family Member Certificate including her name as the legally wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju, as Illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and direct respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a proper Inquiry and Issue a fresh family member Certificate including the petitioner’s name as the legally wedded wife of Late Kollabathula Dharma Rao @ Rahul Raju within a fixed timeframe and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper In the circumstances of the case. ” Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that a 2. 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. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of 3. India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCO 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 I 4 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." 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. 5. 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2024, 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 of the order is received. K 5 With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- iVl. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGiSTRAR //TRUE COPY// i\r SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, District. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Kakinada Andhra Pradesh, Formerly East Godavari District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada. 4. The Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban Kakinada, Kakinada District. 5. One CC to Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies Cnr Revenue Department, State of Andhra Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur ■.y \ • .. * HIGH COURT V • > -■ ( . DATED:29/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22700 OF 2025 ANO^ C> '^3 ^ 1 ? SEP 20» ™ ^ ^ Curtmi Mellon ^ ‘^IgSPATCW^^- DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS