::1:: APHC010506682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 26353/2024 Between: 1. SMT. PEDDAPATI RANEMMA, W/O, PEDDAPATI CHANDRAPAUL, AGED ABOUT. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.9-41, S.C. COLONY, BANDI ATMAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND. RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. THE GRAMPANCHAYAT, BANDI ATMAKUR VILLAGE AND. MANDAL, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 4. PEDDAPATI SANTENNA, S/O P. PEDDA MUGENNA AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SC COLONY. ::2:: NEAR GANGAMMA GUDI MAIN ROAD, BANDIATMAKU VILLAGE AND. MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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, to declare the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in not stopping the illegal construction made by the unofficial Respondent at the premises of Petitioners property bearing Door No.9-41, S.C. Colony, Bandi Atmakur Village and Mandal, Nandyal District even after the representation of Petitioner dt. 15.01.2024 and without there being any permission from the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and against all settled principles of law and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 15.01.2024 by stopping the illegal construction made by the unofficial Respondent without any permissions at the premises of Petitioners property bearing Door No.9- 41, S.C. Colony, Bandi Atmakur Village and Mandal, Nandyal District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats ::3:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 26353/2024 This Court made the following ORDER: The Instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner for the following relief: “..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in not stopping the illegal construction made by the unofficial Respondent at the premises of Petitioner’s property bearing Door No.9-41, S.C Colony, Bandi Atmakur Village and Mandal, Nandyal District even after the representation of Petitioner dt 15.01.2024 and without there being any permission from the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and against all settled principles of law and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.15.01.2024 by stopping the illegal construction made by the unofficial Respondent without any permissions at the premises of Petitioner’s property bearing Door No.9-4,1 S.C Colony, Bandi Atmakur Village and Mandal, Nandyal District and to pass.” 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 15.01.2024 of the Petitioner. ::4:: 3. Learned Government Pleader for Panhayat Raj readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.01.2024, if any pending with the authorities. 4. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Panhayat Raj, this Court need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 15.01.2024, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 15.01.2024 of the Petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::5:: receipt of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders if any. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt: 22.09.2025 krk ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 112 WRIT PETITION NO: 26353/2024 22.09.2025 krk