APHC010478772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24343/2025 Between: 1. POONGODI KRISHNA MURTHY, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 304, HNR ARCADE, NEAR MADHAVA MOTORS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents for not considering my representations including spandana complaint dt 21.07.2025 in order to enter my name in revenue records and issue Pattadar passbook for enabling me to enjoy my land in Sy 433 to an extent of Ac 2.75 cents of Dharmavaram Village, Etcherla Mandal under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 and rules made therein is bad, arbitrary, contrary to provisions of the Act of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act 1971 and also offends Arts 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and to 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 may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to my name in revenue records basing on sale deed vide Doc.No. 5822/2022 dt: 21.10.2022 in Sy. No 433 to an extent of Ac 2.75 cents and issue Pattadar Passbook /Adangal/1-B as 2 expeditiously to claim benefits under the Act and Rules pending disposal of writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24343 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily, this writ petition is filed on the ground that spandana complaint dated 21.07.2025, was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the complaint, 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 spandana complaint dated 21.07.2025, 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: 11.09.2025 KBN