Thokala Srinivasulu, v. Ch. Nagabushanam,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1067 OF 2017 O R D E R :

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by this Court in WP.No.7336 of 2017, wherein this Court directed the Tahasildar, Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District to dispose of the application of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue produced Endorsement dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Tahasildar, Kandukur, along with counter affidavit, stating that petitioner's application was rejected on 19.09.2016 and also asked the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his possession and title with regard to land to an extent of Ac.0.84 cents, for consideration. He also produced copy of the computer generated document with regard to application status in web land, wherein in the remarks column it is stated that "relevant documents not submitted". Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner will produce necessary evidence.

It is to be seen that in the computer generated document filed by the respondent along with counter affidavit, the date of application is shown as 08.08.2016; the status of application as on 19.09.2016 is shown as 'rejected' and in the remarks column it is stated that relevant documents not submitted.

When the respondents want to reject the application of the petitioner for mutation, they should have communicated the rejection order by giving reasons to the petitioner. Then the petitioner would have submitted the relevant documents to the respondents instead of filing the writ petition before this Court. Because of non communication of the order, petitioner had to file present writ petition seeking consideration of their application for mutation. Whenever respondents are rejecting the applications of the petitioners for mutation, they should communicate the reasoned order to the parties enabling them to know the reasons for rejection.

With the above observation and recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner would submit relevant evidence, the Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to produce the evidence as per the Endorsement dated 15.05.2017. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the contempt case, shall stand closed. _______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 14.07.2017 t k.