IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25423 of 2009 Between: P. Narsimlu ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard Sri Janardhan Reddy the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri Janardhan Reddy the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the records on the ground of non-production of records only the order had been made which in fact had been confirmed even by the revisional authority. The learned counsel also would maintain that no reasonable opportunity had been given even before the revisional authority to produce the records. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on REKAPALLI KRISHNA VASU v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHRS[1] and KASHMIN LAL v. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER, SONEPAT AND OTHERS[2]. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj however would contend that though several opportunities had been given the petitioner did not produce the records and in such circumstances the order had been made by the Collector – Second respondent and the same was challenged by way of revision and the first respondent also had confirmed the same. 5. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1480 dated 19-10-2009 in confirming the proceedings No.503/2008-B5-(Panchayat Raj)-2 dated 13-08-2009 of the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principle of natural justice and quash the same in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other suitable orders. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner for production of records. The stand taken by the learned AGP for Panchayat Raj is that though sufficient opportunity had been given, since the petitioner did not produce the records the order had been made by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent. Without expressing any further opinion relating to the merits and demerits, this court is of the considered opinion that a further opportunity be given to the petitioner to produce the records before the second respondent and accordingly the writ petitioner is at liberty to produce the records before the second respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from today and let the second respondent receive such records which may be produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. If the petitioner does not produce the records within time the second respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders. Till then the status-quo obtaining as on today to be maintained. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above direction. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 27, 2009. Note: Furnish CC in three days. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25423 of 2009 November 27, 2009. Note: Furnish CC in three days. B/o.PN [1] 2005 (5) ALD 276 [2] AIR 1980 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 209