ys >1 APHC010092372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES^ AT AMARAVATI P.HD7/. (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUSY^«^og TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRUUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5073 OF 20?/; Between: 1. Sake Adeppa, S/o Nagappa 45 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Sankeapalli village, SC. Colony, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 2. Ramu, S/o Narayna, age 32 years R/o Sankeapalli village, SC. Colony Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satay Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Sri Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mudiguba, Sri Satay Sai District. 5. K. Chintappa, S/o G.Ramanna ^9® years, R/o Sankepalli village Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 6. K. Narayana, S/o K.Ramanna R/o Sankepalli village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 7. K. Venkata narayana, S/o. Late Pedda Chintappa, R/o Sankepalli village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ of Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent not taking any decision on the representation of the petitioner, dated 7-1-2025 as illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2"^^ respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 7-1-2025. lA 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 to direct the 2^^ respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 7-1-2025 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI DHANUNJAYA REDDY K Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7:SRI P. SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5073 of 2025 ORDER: Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that a representation was made to the authorities via Grievance Cell, 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. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that; 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 csuse 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 ah end to the matter and should not direct w 2 i' consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal direct "consideration" without itself make it clear that such consideration will be without deciding to examining the merits, it should 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 to consider the petitioner's representation examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to Costs. no As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Revenue Department, State of A.P., A.P 2. The District Collector. Sri Satay Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Sri Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mudiguba Sri Satay Sai District. 5. One CC to Sri Dhanunjaya Reddy K, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. One CC to Sri P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies. [OUT] ssb k- high court DATED:13/08/2025 ^TOfANOTS^ S 2 S AUG 2025 ORDER WP No.5073 OF 2025 ^ ^ Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS