WRIT PETITION NO: 28595/2025 v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ORDER: WRIT PETITION NO. 28595 of 2025 The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: request No. GNT 202507216926

…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not considering the petitioner representation dated 21.07.2025 submitted under Spandana vide assignment of land Ac 1.08 cents, Ac.1.23 cents and Ac. 1.31 cents comprising total extent Ac.3.63 cents of Mandadam Revenue village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner representation for assignment of above extents of land within a time bound programme and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Pithily this writ petition filed on the ground that a representation 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.

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 representation’ mantra 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 4 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.

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.

However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2025, must be considered by respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within eight weeks from the date of the order is received.