::1:: APHC010455302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24119/2025 Between: 1. V PADMAVATHI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGE 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-17, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. M.SRIHARI RAJU, S/O. RANGARAJU, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5- 15, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. CH.BABY, W/O. SRINIVASA RAJU, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-18, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT 4. M.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, AGE 64 YEARS, R/O. ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 5. NAMBURI SUBBARAJU, S/O. BHAGAVAN RAJU AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-20, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 6. ADDADA VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGE 76 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-14, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ::2:: DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM. 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ATHREYAPURAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM 5. THETAHSILDAR, ATHREYAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRIC 6. VENKATA RAJU, S/O. SOMARAJU, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. NEAR GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 7. M RAMABHADRA RAJU, S/O. SOMARAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. NEAR GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): ::3:: The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner for the following relief: “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos.6 and 7 for fencing the public road and depriving the ingress and eggress of the petitioners houses sitauted at Athreyapuram Village and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, despite representationsMandal, dt.26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025 addressed by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein to the fence laid down by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the public road, by remove considering the representations dt.26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025 addressed by the petitioners and pass…” 2. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the applications/representations dated 26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025 of the Petitioners in accordance with law. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents did not refute the allegations and readily agreed to consider the ::4:: applications/representations of the petitioners dated 26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025, if any pending with the authorities. 5. In view of the submission of the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, 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 not serve the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to consider the applications/representations dated 26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the applications/representations dated 26.06.2025 and 05.08.2025 submitted by the petitioners, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all concerned parties. No costs. 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::5:: Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt: 25.09.2025 klk ::6:: 205 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24119 of 2025 25.09.2025 ::7:: klk