Writ Petition No. 18118 of 2004 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Oct 2004
- Bench
- A GOPAL REDDY
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Uppala Sridhar, S/o Rajesham, Upa-Sarpanch, Nagunoor Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimangar. 4 Moota Satyanarayana, S/o Danaiah, R/o Nagunoor Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein 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 respondent No.1 in not disposing the revision petition filed by the respondent No.4 and not passing the orders upon a stay vacate petition filed by the petitioner on 24-6-2004 praying to vacate the orders in Memo No.63732/Pts.II/A1/2004-1 dated 16-6-2004 through which keeping in abeyance of the proceedings No.A6/1333/2003-pts.dated 19-3-2004, as the same are passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner even though the petitioner filed caveat petition before the respondent No.1 on 20-5-2004, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and contrary to the orders in WP No.6457 of 2004 dated 9-4-2004 and WP No.10816 of 2004. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for Respondents : G.P. FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and both them have agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. The petitioner earlier moved this Court by way of W.P.No.10816 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.6.2004 directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the revision filed by fourth respondent against the order dated 19.3.2004 passed by second respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner and fourth respondent in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In view of the above directions, if the respondent has not disposed of the representation of the petitioner, the proper remedy to the petitioner is to move contempt application under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on expiry of four weeks. Even as per the averments made in the affidavit, the copy of the said order was served on the respondent on 18.9.2004 and the period of four weeks has not yet expired. As such, the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the directions of this Court, the first respondent has not disposed of the revision petition filed by fourth respondent and not passing orders on the vacate stay application filed by petitioner, cannot be countenanced. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to comply the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.10816 of 2004 dated 29.6.2004. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 6.10.2004 DA To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimangar. 4 Two CCs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Oct 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.