IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19415 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P., Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.Narayanamma, R/o. D.No. 1/346-C, Yerramukkapali ( Village and post), Kadapa District. 2 The District Development Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kadapa. ( R-2 is a formal party as no relief is sought against him .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of " Writ of Certiorari " calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in M.A.No. 1521/2007 in M.A.No. 825/2006 in O.A.No. 5691/1996 dated 02-04-2008 and quash the same as being perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law, along with orders in M.A.No. 825/2006 dated 31-01- 2007 and O.A.No. 5691/1996 dated 30.10.1998. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: (per GM, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 02.04.2008 passed in M.A.No.1521 of 2007 in M.A.No.825 of 2006 in O.A.No.5691 of 1996, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad along with the order, dated 31.01.2007, passed in M.A.No.825 of 2006 and the order, dated 30.10.1998, passed in O.A.No.5691 of 1996. The petitioners herein and the second respondent herein are the respondents and the ﬁrst respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.5691 of 1996 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as arrayed in the said O.A. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is the wife of the deceased employee of the respondents organization, ﬁled O.A.No.5691 of 1996 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to comply with the orders passed by the ﬁrst respondent- Government in Memo No.78586/Estt.11/83-20, dated 26.05.1989 and also to release the family pension and all other beneﬁts as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 24.02.1964, and the same was allowed on 30.10.2008 directing the respondents to release all the pensionary beneﬁts as per the said memo and also family pension to her. Thereafter, she ﬁled M.A.No.825 of 2006 in O.A.No.5691 of 1996 seeking a direction to the second respondent-Executive Engineer to implement the order dated 30.10.1998 passed in O.A.No.5691 of 1996 and the same was allowed ex parte on 31.01.2007. Thereafter, the respondents ﬁled M.A.No.1521 of 2007 seeking to set aside the said ex parte order and to restore O.A.No.5691 of 1996 stating that the copy of the Memo, dated 26.05.1989, passed by the ﬁrst respondent, which was produced before the Tribunal in O.A.NO.5691 of 1996, was a fabricated one, but the said M.A. was dismissed on 02.04.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the memo dated 26.05.1989, relied upon by the petitioner, is a fake and fabricated one and that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed O.A.No.5691 of 1996 without deciding the validity or otherwise of the memo and further, it erroneously directed to implement the orders passed in O.A.No.5691 of 1996. From a perusal of the material on record, it is found that the writ petitioners have not ﬁled counter- aﬃdavit in O.A.No.5691 of 1996. Though the arguments of the learned Government Pleader were heard in the said O.A., the memo was not disputed. Similarly, in M.A.No.825 of 2006 in O.A.No.5691 of 1996 ﬁled by the applicant seeking to implement the reliefs granted in O.A.No.5691 of 1996, the third respondent-District Development Oﬃcer ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit stating that the second respondent- Executive Engineer is the competent authority to implement the directions given in O.A.No.5691 of 1996, but no where it was stated that the Memo dated 26.05.1989 was a fabricated one. Since the writ petitioners have not disputed the validity of the memo dated 26.05.1989 either in O.A.No.5691of 1996 or in M.A.No.825 of 2006, now they cannot contend that the said memo was fabricated one. In view of the above, there are no grounds warranting interference by this Court. However, the said memo shall not be treated as a precedent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:08.09.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to the Government Pleader for Services-II, High Court Building, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}