APHC010374972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20358/2026 Between: 1. POTLADURTHI RAJAMMA, W/O LATE POTLADURTHI RAMANAIAH @ KOVURU YANADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RIO RAMNAGAR, RAJAMPET TOWN, RAJAMPET MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. 516115. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA- 516001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMPET, RAJAMPET MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT- 516115. ...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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.3 in rejecting the application No.FMC260530041375 dated 30.05.2026 for issuance of Family Member Certificate of the petitioner, without considering as the petitioner husband demised in Kuwait road accident, is arbitrary illegal and against to the provisions of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to issue the Family Member Certificate forthwith to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 issue an order or direction to direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the application No. FMC260530041375 dated 30.05.2026 submitted by the petitioner for issuance of Family Member Certificate and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Velagani Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. Assailing the endorsement dated 30.05.2026 (Ex.P4) issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the issuance of a Family Member Certificate, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s husband died on 18.12.2025 in Kuwait in a road accident. The petitioner made an application vide FMC260530041375 dated 30.05.2026 to the 3rd respondent for issuance of Family Member Certificate. The 3rd respondent, by endorsement (Ex.P4) rejected the application. Initially, the petitioner received a text message (Ex.P3) to her mobile, wherein it was stated that the petitioner’s request for Family Member Certificate has been rejected. He would submit that the 3rd respondent failed to assign reasons for rejecting the application, and even the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the fairly conceded that Ex.P4 does not contain any reasons. 5. A perusal of Ex.P4, does not contain any reasons, except mentioning “Rejected (insufficient document produced during field enquiry). 7. It is a settled principle of law that reasoning is the heartbeat of every judicial order. The quasi-judicial authority shall consider the contentions of the parties. If the authority does not accept them, there should be a finding to that effect. The reasons recorded by the authority disclose the mental process by which the decision has been reached and demonstrate that the matter has received due and thoughtful consideration. The reasons assure the parties that their submissions have been considered and promote transparency in the administration of justice. The reasons further facilitate appellate or supervisory review courts in understanding the order. Reasons serve as a safeguard against arbitrariness by ensuring that conclusions are grounded in legal principles and evidence rather than mere subjective opinion. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. Therefore, recording of clear, cogent reasons is an indispensable component of the rule of law. 8. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1, the Hon’ble Apex Court while emphasizing the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the Administrative authorities and Tribunals observed that “administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise”. Thus, further observed “the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon 1 1990(4) SCC 594 which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.” 9. In M/s Kranti Assn. Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 10. Given the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Writ Petition is Allowed. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly as per the Rules, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496