HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1214 OF 2014 DATED:23.9.2014 Between:
Gaddam Madhava Reddy … Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1214 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, dt.25.7.2014 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition rejecting the prayer of the appellant – writ petitioner for setting aside the order of the respondent No.3 dt.9.7.2014 in sealing the bore well of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The writ Court should have entertained this matter without driving the appellant to the alternative remedy.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as His Lordship has clearly found that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in another writ petition the matter was remitted for hearing and it was heard after giving notice and everything was placed before the Tahsildar, who found that there has been no permission either to dig bore well afresh or to get re-silt of the old defunct bore well.
However, learned counsel for the appellant says that such a fact finding is totally wrong. We think that this cannot be decided by the writ Court as it is not possible to decide the factual issue. The learned single Judge has observed that the appellant has alternative remedy of appeal, and rightly dismissed the writ petition and hence we do not want to interfere with the same.
We therefore dispose of the appeal without passing any order granting liberty to the appellant to take steps to prefer statutory appeal. If the appeal is preferred within two weeks from date, the same shall be decided on merit by the appellate authority in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of preferring the appeal.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 23.9.2014 bnr