IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3751 of 2004 Between: Syed Hussain & another. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool district, & others. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Panchayat Raj This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3751 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not approving the building plan of the petitioners as it was presented, but approving with modifications without assigning the reasons, as arbitrary. The petitioners also called in question the validity or otherwise of order dated 29.10.2003 passed by respondent No.2 by which he relegated the petitioners to the Panchayat Secretary, Banaganapalle for issue of certified copy of building permission. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the record. The petitioners applied for a building permission for reconstruction of their shop over the area measuring 33 feet from North to South along with building plans, after paying requisite fees. By its resolution No.30 dated 30.06.1997, the Banaganapalle Gram Panchayat approved the plan submitted by the petitioners. As the petitioners could not complete the construction within 12 months from the date of passing of the resolution, they again made an application in the month of February 2003 seeking building permission. Vide its resolution No.9 dated 24.05.2003, the Gram Panchayat granted permission by curtailing a part of the portion for which the permission was sought and sanctioned the plan for a reduced area. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.2. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 directed the petitioners to approach the Panchayat Secretary, Banaganapalle, who was requested to issue certified copy of the building permission. The grievance of the petitioners specifically raised in the appeal was that the Banaganapalle Gram Panchayat was not justified in reducing the area of 11.6 feet out of 33 feet for which they sought for building permission. Evidently, respondent No.2 exercised his appellate power under Section 128 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in entertaining the appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that he failed to deal with the grounds raised by the petitioners in support of their appeal and the relief claimed by them. Respondent No.2, being the appellate authority, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Since the order passed by respondent No.2 does not conform to the requirement of an order expected from an appellate authority, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners against the action of respondent No.3 in curtailing a portion of the area for which they sought for building permission. He shall dispose of the appeal, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.08.2008 ES