APHC010464432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24027/2025 Between: 1. GANGAVARAM KAMAKSHAMMA, W/O GANGAVARAM LOKESH, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O D. NO. 2-55, ALUM VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THUIIUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU 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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the in action on the part of the E-seva vide Application No. TATTAO12100075143 dated 14-09-2021 for deleting the land admeasuring Ac.4-27 Cents in Sy.No.308-3 of Alum Revenue Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District from the prohibitoiy list as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner filed through E-seva vide Application No. TATTAO 12100075143 dated 14-09-2021 for deleting the land admeasuring Ac.4-27 Cents in Sy.No.308-3 of Alum Revenue Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District from the prohibitoiy list and pass 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 Pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to 2 consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner filed through E-seva vide Application No. TATTAO12100075143 dated 14-09-2021 for deleting the land admeasuring Ac.4-27 Cents in Sy.No.308-3 of Alum Revenue Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District from the prohibitory list pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALLU HARI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24027 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily, this writ petition is filed on the ground that application bearing No.TTA012100075143 dated 14.09.2021, was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the application, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh1 held as follows: “…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 been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute…” 3. 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 1 (2019) 15 SCC 613 4 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." 4. 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. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioner’s application bearing No.TTA012100075143 dated 14.09.2021, be considered by examining thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, 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: 10.09.2025 KBN