IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28958 of 2010 Between: K. Rama Sastry ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.S. Mallikarjunar Rao for Sri G. Ananda Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28958 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in submitting the report called for by respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the former’s order, as illegal and arbitrary. In my opinion, the relief claimed by the petitioner is misconceived for the reason that respondent No.1 being the appellate authority is not expected to call for a report from respondent No.2 against whose order the petitioner filed an appeal. As the appellate authority, it is the duty of respondent No.1 to consider the appeal independently without being influenced by the decision of respondent No.2. Though this Court has deprecated the practice of the appellate and the revisional authorities calling for reports from the authority, whose order has been the subject matter of such appeal or revision, this practice is being continued by the appellate and revisional fora. In my opinion, sooner this practice is done away with, it is better for the litigants, who avail the appellate and revisional remedies. Respondent No.1 is therefore directed to consider the petitioner’s appeal without being guided by the reports, if any submitted by respondent No.2, but on the basis of the available records and in the light of the material produced by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner and respondent No.3 before deciding the appeal and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.36896 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.11.2010 ES