Madineni Anasuyamma, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.23272 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 representations dated 04.04.2017 and 01.07.2017. The representations were made on 04.04.2017 and 01.07.2017. The petitioner ought not to entertain the idea that the administration should go after her representations and decide expeditiously. It is always desirable that little breathing time be given to the authorities in looking into grievances and orders are passed. Further, there should be demand/ refusal or reminder on the applications 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 applications whether statutory or otherwise ought not to be a matter of course. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. ____________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 14.07.2017 Prv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.23272 of 2017 Date: 14.07.2017 Prv