IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22808 of 2009 Between: Samata, a Non-Government Organisation, Represented by its Executive Director, Visakhapatnam and others. ...Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary To Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. S. Murthy Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 9: Government Pleader for Forests Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No. 10: None The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C. J.) 1) In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have challenged validity of an order dated 29th April 2009 passed in Forest Appeal No.49 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2) By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, the case has been remanded to respondent No.9. 3) Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, this Court need not interfere as it is a matter for remand, especially when respondent No.9 has to consider all relevant facts which might be placed before him and decide the matter afresh. 4) It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the concerned petitioners, who are to appear before respondent No.9, are illiterate tribals and they would not be in a position to represent their cases. In the afore-stated circumstances, it has been submitted that respondent No.10 be directed to render legal assistance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and other similarly situated persons, who are to appear before respondent No.9 in other similar cases. 5) We are sure that if approached, respondent No.10 shall make necessary arrangements to render necessary legal assistance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and other similarly situated persons who are to appear before respondent No.9 in other similar cases. 6) Upon remand, respondent No.9 has to hear the concerned parties and dispose of the claim petitions. We hope that within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.9 shall decide the case remanded to by the learned Principal District Judge and other similar cases. 7) With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 11th November, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS