Sri Sattemmathalli Ethipothala Padhaka Rythu Abhivrudhi v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.44716 of 2016 ORDER:
Heard Mr. Sanjeev for petitioner, Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Durga Prasad for respondents 7 to 17.
With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of by considering the preliminary objection raised by the writ petitioner.
To appreciate the legal objection of petitioner herein, I consider it appropriate to refer to the order passed by this Court on 10.11.2016 in Writ Petition No.38825 of 2016 which reads as follows:
"Petitioners complain against inaction in considering the grievance stated in representation, dated 03.09.2016, as illegal and amounts to refusing to exercise jurisdiction conferred on respondent Nos.2 and 4. The prayer is against inaction and for brevity, the complaint reiterated in the writ petition is not adverted to.
Respondent No.4 if examines and disposes of the representation, the grievance complained by the petitioners is not only remedies, but helps in proper functioning of the Scheme operated by respondent No.5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of by this order:
The petitioners are given liberty to re-submit representation, dated 03.09.2016, within one week from
SVB, J W.P.No.44716 of 2016 today to respondent Nos.2 and 4 by enclosing a copy of this order. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to have the grievance enquired into or examined, if necessary, call upon respondent No.5, and pass appropriate orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
The direction in the Writ Petition was to the District Collector, Guntur District, and the Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. The counsel for petitioner places on record notice dated 24.11.2016 issued by the Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation, Guntur, to petitioner Sangam and also the explanation dated 01.12.2016 filed by petitioner. While matter stood thus, the third respondent by reference to communication No.1DC/EE/GNT/ 2016-17/2662 dated 14.12.2016 appointed sixth respondent as Special Officer to petitioner Sangam.
The complaint of petitioner is that the appointment of Special Officer firstly is not in line with the orders passed by this Court on 10.11.2016 in Writ Petition No.38825 of 2016 and secondly assuming without admitting that the third respondent has jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of the petitioner Sangam
SVB, J W.P.No.44716 of 2016 still before issuing the communication impugned in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was not heard or any opportunity is afforded and such violation is again in contravention of the order of this Court dated 10.11.2016.
The counsel appearing for the respondents firstly tried to explain the fact in issue which is compelling the authorities to act against the society and alternatively having regard to the close succession of events which ultimately culminated in the issuance of proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition submit that the proceedings can be set aside, matter remitted to third respondent for consideration and disposal afresh.
The statement is placed on record. Proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition are set aside and the issues which are to be considered and are stated in the writ affidavit as well as stated by way of reply are left open for consideration by the third respondent.
Writ Petition ordered as indicated above.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________ S.V. BHATT, J 21st DECEMBER, 2016.
kvni