1 APHC010395402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22469/2026 Between: Shaik Mahaboob Basha and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TADELA RADHAMMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are not considering their representations dated 29.06.2026 & 09.07.2026 requesting to delete their properties from the Prohibition List under Section 22(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. Heard Ms T.Radhamma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing counsel for Wakf Board and Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondents in one voice contended that, the petitioners have addressed the representation dated 29.06.2026 to the Chief Executive Officer, A.P.Wakf Board but delivered to the revenue authorities and obtained stamp and later made a representation dated 09.07.2026 to the Inspector Auditor, therefore their representations cannot be considered. 4. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel. 5. G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 22.02.2012 clearly envisages that statutory services which are delivered through Mee-seva shall be not be delivered in parallel in the manual format and all the departments and officials should scrupulously follow the Mee-Seva protocol. Separate initiatives and stand alone applications running as of now in various districts shall also be merged and subsumed in the Mee Seva. Admittedly the petitioners have made representations to the Chief Executive Officer, A.P.Wakf Board but delivered to the revenue authorities and obtained stamp, however there is no initial at all. In view of the same, this court cannot entertain the writ petition basing on the material available on record. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the concerned authority in accordance with law. 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS