1 APHC010577292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30126/2024 Between: 1. PALAKA SURESH, S/O SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC- GRADE-I HINDI PANDIT R/O H.NO.36 1ST FLOOR, RK TOWNSHIP APARTMENTS SALURU TOWN VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES. HIGH COURT PREMISES AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, MANDAL LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES. DISTRICT COURT PREMISES VIZIANAGARAM TOWN VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. PALAKA SUNAYANA GRACE, D/O PALAKA SURESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OCC- STUDENT, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. PALAKA SULOCHANA PRAISY, D/O PALAKA SURESH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS OCC- STUDENT, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. KIMIDI GOWRAMMA, W/O SADANANDAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2 OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM 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 an appropriate writ order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent authority vide in pre - Litigation case.no. 16/2016 dt 16.4.2016 passed against the petitioner without giving any notice and without any opportunity to defend his case is illegal, arbitraiy and violation of the Art. 14 and 21 Of Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural Justice and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent authority vide in pre -Litigation case.no. 16/2016 dt 16.4.2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned proceedings of the 3^^ Respondent authority vide in pre -Litigation case.no. 16/2016 dt 16.4.2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 3. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner is the father of respondents 4 and 5 and the son-in-law of respondent No.6. It appears that respondent No.6 acting on behalf of her granddaughters respondents 4 and 5 had initiated Pre-Litigation Case No.16 3 of 2016, before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Salur for grant of maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for each of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Lok-Adalat and signed the award of the Lok-Adalat, dated 16.04.2016. Under this award, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to respondents 4 and 5 on the 10th day of each month. The award also stipulated that respondents 4 and 5 shall be entitled to initiate Execution Proceedings if such payments are not made. 2. The petitioner has moved the present Writ Petition on 17.12.2024 contending that the award had been passed behind his back, without notice and without any opportunity being given to defend his case. The petitioner also contends that the Lok-Adalat should have taken cognizance of the fact that the 6th respondent had no locus to file the said Pre-Litigation Case when she had not been appointed as a guardian of respondents 4 and 5 under any provision of law. The petitioner also contends that the award had been passed by the Lok-Adalat without assessing the income, expenditure and activities of the petitioner. 3. Sri V. Vijaya Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the award had been obtained, by way of coercion, and the circumstances in which such coercion was set out in the counter, filed by the petitioner, against the Execution Petition, moved by respondents 4 and 5, in the year 2018. 4 4. The pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are to the effect that the impugned award is invalid as it had been passed without notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner. However, the oral submissions of the learned counsel are that there was coercion. This contradiction is not supported by any document and the learned counsel seeks further time for producing the documents. 5. This Court, keeping in view the fact that the award had been passed with the consent of the petitioner in the year 2016 is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the award was passed either without notice to the petitioner or that it had been obtained by coercion. The silence of the petitioner for the last nine years militates against accepting the contention of the petitioner that he had signed the award under coercion. 6. The question of the locus of the 6th respondent in filing the Pre- Litigation Case on behalf of her granddaughters would be a relevant issue if there had been a contest to the Pre-Litigation Case. Once the petitioner had consented to the said award by affixing his signature, the question of raising the issue of locus of the 6th respondent would not remain. 7. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Lok-Adalat passed on 16.04.2016. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J __________________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J RJS To, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES. HIGH COURT PREMISES AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, MANDAL LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES. DISTRICT COURT PREMISES VIZIANAGARAM TOWN VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. PALAKA SUNAYANA GRACE, D/O PALAKA SURESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OCC- STUDENT, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. PALAKA SULOCHANA PRAISY, D/O PALAKA SURESH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS OCC- STUDENT, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. KIMIDI GOWRAMMA, W/O SADANANDAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O NAIDU STREET MAKKUVA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 7. Two CD Copies 6 HIGH COURT RRRJ ,JSJ DATED:30/06/2025 ORDER WP 30126/2024