APHC010303982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16077/2024 Between: 1. NASINA DURGA BHAVANI, W/O. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. VIDAVALURU VILLAGE VIDAVALURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. NASINA MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. LATE RAMANAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. VIDAVALURU VILLAGE VIDAVALURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, VIDAVALURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R NELLORE 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 a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in taking suitable action on petitioners representation dated 07.03.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a survey in Sy. No. 727, 592/2, 724, 733/1, 736, 715, 714 and 1415 of Vedavaluru Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District to protect petitioners property by deciding petitioners representation dated 11.09.2022, 07.03.2024, 14.03.2024 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 direct the respondents to conduct a survey in Sy. No. 727, 592/2, 724, 733/1, 736, 715, 714 and 1415 of Vedavaluru Village & Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District to protect petitioners property by deciding petitioners representation dated 07.03.2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.16077 of 2024 ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 07.03.2024 was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation, 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 consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should 1 (2019) 15 SCC 613 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 petitioners representation dated 07.03.2024 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: 25.09.2025 TVN 216 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.16077 OF 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 TVN