IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18372 of 1999 Between: 1 Ch.Nagendra Prasad, S/o. Logeswara Sastri, Kunavaram, Khammam District. 2 Uppulori Bharathi Devi, W/o. Ch.Nagendra Prasad, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Agent to the Government,(District Collector, Khammam) Khammam Distirct. 2 The Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 M/s.Bhadragiri Chits & Finance Pvt.Limited Rep., by its Foreman Sri S.V.V.Satyanarayana, Bhadrachamam, Khammam Distirct. 4 Berava Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Rupsingar Fancy & Congan Hall, Indira Market, Bhadrachalem, Khammam District. 5 B.Sujatha, W/o. B.Venkateswar Rao, Rupasingar Fancy & Congan Hall, Indira Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 To issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with Decree passed in O.S.No.598, dated 24.11.1998 by Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MANIKYALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18372 OF 1999 ORDER: The short question which has been raised in this writ petition is that, while Rule 14 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 permits the Collector to entertain the appeal and remand the matter to the R.D.O, the present proceedings are ﬁled under the C.P.C. wherein the Collector has not been conferred any power as the agent to decide these matters. Learned Counsel would submit that if the application had been ﬁled under the Agency Rules then against the order of the Collector, or the R.D.O, an appeal would lie to the High Court. It is well settled that as long as the exercise of power can be traced to a statutory, or an enabling provision the mere fact that a wrong provision has been referred to does not oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the case on hand, the District Collector had the power to entertain an application of this nature under Rule 11(4) of the Agency Rules and the mere fact that the provisions of C.P.C. were quoted instead of Rule 11(4) would not oust the jurisdiction of the District Collector. In the present case, the District Collector has, in fact, transferred the case to the Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam which passed the decree. I see no reason, therefore, to grant the relief sought for on this ground. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that since there has been a stay throughout, pending disposal of the writ petition, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing all such remedies, including the remedy of appeal, as are available to them in law. No order as to costs. __________ 25-8-2008 asp