Nammi Atcha Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Between:

Nammi Atcha Rao S/o. Kagithamma, Aged about 50 years, Occu: Cultivation, R/o. Kathipudi village, Shankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari district.

.....Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur district and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: "to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of 2nd respondent herein in not undertaking any enquiry as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.17954 of 2017 dated 06.06.2017 in spite of the petitioner herein submitting the representations on 17.05.2017 and 25.06.2017 along with the copy of the order in the above writ petition as arbitrary, illegal, irrational, without jurisdiction, opposed to principles of natural justice and violate of Articles, 14, 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to conduct enquiry in respect of the petitioner's representation dated 17.05.2017 and 25.06.2017 and communicate the decision to the petitioner at the earliest ... "

2.

Reading of the above prayer would show that petitioner is seeking implementation of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.17954 of 2017.

3.

Said writ petition was disposed of with the following order: "The petitioner is given liberty to resubmit representation dated 17.05.2017 along with copy of this order to 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent affords opportunity to petitioner, examines the record in this behalf, takes decision and communicates to petitioner within two months thereafter."

4.

If petitioner alleges that order of this Court is not complied/ implemented, petitioner ought to have worked out his remedies as available in law instead of filing a fresh writ petition. No sequence

of directions can be made. However, it is appropriate to note further that Tahsildar, Rajanagaram, vide his endorsement No.Ref.C/1759/2016 dated 12.07.2017, rejected the request of petitioner. Thus, in fact, no proceedings are pending before the Tahsildar as of now. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm