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.1230 OF 2014
DATED: 25.09.2014 Between:
M/s. Gayatri All Caste & Boatsmen Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
… Appellant and The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1230 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is admitted and is being disposed of finally today without observing any further formality.
We have heard all the learned counsel and we have seen the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge.
It is rightly contended by Mr. C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, being supported by Mr. S.R.Ashok and Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned trial Judge did not go into the real issues canvassed in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, it was its claim and contention that the representation, dated 13.07.2014, made by the writ petitioner for issuance of transit passes for transportation of sand quantities from stock points, was not considered and disposed of. In substance, there has been any indication on the part of the Government official for not dealing with this sort of problem. However, the learned trial Judge for deciding the justifiability of inaction on the part of the Government official, had gone into the merits of the matter. We think that this issue was not involved as such decision on that issue is not called for. At the first instance, the learned trial Judge should have issued directions to the authority concerned for disposal of the representation instead of deciding the writ petition itself. According to us, such an exercise would tantamount to the usurping of the jurisdictional power of the executive authority. When the executive authority takes absurd decision and is judicially reviewable, then the writ Court will intervene otherwise not.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is set aside and we direct the Government to dispose of the representation as mentioned in the prayer of the writ petition in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the impleaded respondent but before allowing the hearing to the impleaded respondent, whether he has locus in this matter has to be examined and whether he has got any interest in the issue raised in the representation. If he does not have any interest establishing his locus, his objections should not be entertained.
The Government thereafter shall also decide whether this sort of representation can be entertained under the law and then decide the matter on merit. The Government shall take a decision independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by us or by the learned trial Judge. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
25th September, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J pnb