HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1227 OF 2014 DATE: 25.09.2014 Between:
S.V. Srinivas Reddy … Appellant And State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1227 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 other formality.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have seen the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge.
It is rightly contended by Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned 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 his claim and contention that the representation dated 06.08.2011 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 inaction of the Government official in not dealing with this sort of problem. However, the learned Trial Judge for deciding the justifiability of inaction of the Government had gone into the merit of the matter and decided. We think that this issue was not involved in the matter as such decision on merit was 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 power of the executive authority if it is done at the first instance. When the executive authority does not take action inspite of mandate of the Court or takes absurd decision then the writ Court will intervene in the matter 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 made by the writ petitioner in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the 6th respondent but before hearing the 6th respondent on merit, his locus in this matter has to be examined viz., whether he has got any interest in the issue raised in the representation. In case he does not have any interest to establish his locus, his objections should be ignored.
The Government thereafter shall also decide whether this sort of representation can be entertained under the law and then decide the matter on merit. Decision shall be taken independently without being influenced by the observations if any made by us or by the learned Trial Judge. The 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. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 25.09.2014 ES