Vinjamuri Aseervadham, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.23932 of 2017 ORDER:

Though the prayer is one against inaction, this court is not inclined to exercise its discretion or jurisdiction and issue directions to the respondents to look into the representation dated 19.06.2017. The representation was made on 19.06.2017. The petitioner ought not to entertain the idea that the administration should go after his representation and decide expeditiously. It is always desirable that little breathing time be given to the authorities in looking into grievances and passing orders. Further, there should be demand/ refusal or reminder on the representation already filed, and inaction if still continues, then a suitable prayer can be made for consideration by this court. The inaction complained by a party is again examined from different considerations viz., nature of prayer or grievance, hardship complained, whether timely decision is required to be taken or not. The discretion to issue Mandamus for disposing of representation whether statutory or otherwise ought not to be a matter of course.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

____________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 20.07.2017 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.23932 of 2017 Date: 20.07.2017 BSS