High Court for State of TelanganaWP/1164/2016disposed of no costs

Pusuluri Peddayya S/O. Venkatratnam v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2016-01-18Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 1164 of 2016 BETWEEN Pusuluri Peddayya ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 18.01.2016 ORDER:- Heard.

2. Petitioner questions the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2015 given by the fourth respondent. Learned counsel alternatively submits that petitioner's application seeking incorporation of his name in the revenue records dated 05.12.2015 is already submitted to the fourth respondent, which is annexed as Ex.P2.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the endorsement itself is illegal, I do not see any illegality inasmuch as the impugned endorsement is given on the request of the petitioner, which

appears to be under the Right to Information Act requiring the authority to furnish information as to on what authority the revenue record is changed and in response to that the fourth respondent had issued the impugned endorsement after verification of the record. Thus the said endorsement is only a reply given under the Right to Information Act and it cannot be treated as an order so as to maintain the present writ petition.

4. Hence, the primary relief sought for in the writ petition against the said endorsement cannot be considered. However, with regard to the alternative request of the petitioner that his application seeking incorporation of his name is pending with the fourth respondent since 05.12.2015, it is appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to examine the said application on its own merits and take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 18, 2016 LMV