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 Nos.1235 and 1236 OF 2014 DATED: 25.09.2014 WRIT APPEAL No.1235 OF 2014 Between:
M/s.Siri Sand Company, Represented by its Managing Partner, Kothapeta Village & Mandal, 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 Nos.1235 and 1236 OF 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these appeals are admitted and are 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 Petitions. In the Writ Petitions, it was their claim and contention that the representations, dated 13.07.2014, made by the writ petitioners for issuance of transit passes for transportation of sand quantities from stock points, were 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 representations 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 petitions in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioners as well as the impleaded respondents but before allowing the hearing to the impleaded respondents, whether they have locus in this matter has to be examined and whether they have got any interest in the issue raised in the representation. If they do not have any interest establishing their locus, their 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 Appeals are disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
25th September, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J pnb