Ranga Venkatesh and Others vs The Secretary, Govt., of A.P., Revenue (SS) Dept., Secretariat and Others

Satyabrata Sinha, C.J.—This writ appeal is directed against the judgement dated 22-2-2001, passed by the learned single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition W.P. No. 25342 of 1999 filed by the petitioner-respondent No. 5 was allowed. In the writ petition, respondent No. 5 herein questioned the order dated 17-9-1999, passed by the revisional authority. The said order reads:

The attention of the Special Chief Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that the Government have considered the revision petition filed by Sri Ranga Venkatesh and 3 others of Chengicherla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

In view of the contradictory statements by both the parties and on the submission made by the Spl. G.P. and on perusal of records, Government order to set aside the orders issued by the CSS & LR in his proceedings dt. 8-7-1997, 30-11-1997 and 31-12-1998. Accordingly, the stay granted by the Government in Memo. 3rd cited is also vacated.

The connected record sent in the reference 4th cited i.e., disposal CPRT No. 91/97, dt. 21-9-1998 containing CF 1-125 pages and NF 1-20 pages returned herewith. The same may be acknowledged.

Before the learned single Judge, the relevant record was produced. Upon perusal of the record, the learned single Judge observed:

The record made available for the perusal of the Court no doubt would disclose the preparation of a detailed note for the perusal of the Minister for Revenue. The file also would reveal that the said note was circulated to the Minister and orders were obtained thereon. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Law Department for advice. The consent of the Law Department was obtained for dispatching only a portion of the said notice. From the perusal of the record, it does not appear that the revisional authority passed any order as such. The Minister for Revenue appears to have merely affixed his signature on the note so prepared by the office.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in the file produced, an order has been passed by the Minister for Revenue. The learned single Judge, having gone through the records found that the Minister for Revenue, who is the revisional authority, has merely put his signature on the note prepared by the office. Even assuming that there is such an order passed by the Minister for Revenue, which was sought to be communicated to the petitioner by reason of the order impugned in the writ petition, we have no other alternative, but to deprecate the manner in which the statutory authorities are discharging their duties. A statutory authority while passing an order, must apply its own mind. It is unthinkable that a statutory authority would just put his signature on the note put up before him by his subordinates. In any event, even if there exists any such order, having regard to the principles of judicial review, such an order, ought not to have been communicated to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the only order, which has been communicated to the petitioner, is by way of Memo No. 19518/SS.1/99-12, dated 17-9-1999. The said order, however, does not disclose whether the quasi-judicial authority has passed any separate order. For the purpose of exercising power of judicial review, the Court shall only take notice of such order, which has been communicated to the party affected, and not other orders, which might have been kept, in the file.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement.

For the reasons aforementioned, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgement of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal has no merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. As directed by the learned single Judge, the matter stands remitted to the revisional authority for disposal afresh in accordance with law. No costs.