IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2009 Dt.25.11.2009 Between: Palanki Kesava Reddy … Appellant And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri J. Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: G.P. for Revenue THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The grievance, in short, of the appellant herein, who filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by order dt.26.10.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.17208 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.8267 of 2008, is that the learned Single Judge permitted the official respondents to hold enquiry with reference to order dt.9.7.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.14100 of 2007, which was permitted to be withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.747 of 2007. The material on record shows that there is a dispute in respect of the immovable property between the appellant and the private respondents. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.8267 of 2008 aggrieved by dispossession by the official respondents and handing over possession by them in favour of private respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that by notice dt.27.8.2007, the official respondents initiated enquiry in pursuance of order dt.9.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.14100 of 2007 and that in view of withdrawal of the said Writ Petition, with the permission of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.747 of 2007, no enquiry can be held. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that subsequent to the notice dt.27.8.2007 the enquiry was postponed and in view of the dispute between two private parties, the official respondents initiated enquiry so as to decide as to who is entitled to be in lawful possession of the property. The order dt.17.9.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.747 of 2007 shows that Writ Petition No.14100 of 2007 was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant. Therefore, if the official respondents are entitled to hold an enquiry in accordance with law, they can hold such an enquiry independent of the observations made and directions given in order dt.9.7.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.14100 of 2007, because the said order ceased to exist with the withdrawal of the Writ Petition itself with the permission of this Court by the appellant. We also find legitimacy in the grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the official respondents are bound to consider the appellant’s representation dt.31.10.2007 and the legal notice dt.29.2.2008 in the enquiry, which is initiated by the official respondents. As the main Writ Petition is pending and the learned Single Judge has protected the interest of the appellant by restraining the official respondents from passing a final order in the enquiry, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, as observed hereinabove, while holding enquiry, the official respondents shall not take into consideration the order passed in Writ Petition No.14100 of 2007 and they shall also consider the above mentioned representation of the appellant and the legal notice issued on his behalf. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25.11.2009 bnr