IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 819 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/06/2008 in WP NO : 14359 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Kakara Subba Rao S/o.Abraham R/o.Baddavanipeta,Palakol West Godavari District 2 Kandregula Parvathi W/o.Rajendra Prasad R/o.Poolapalli Palakol Mandal West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector,West Godavari, Eluru 2 The REvenue Divisional Officer, Narsapuram West Godavari District 3 The Mandal Revenue officer,palakol Mandal West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.UMADEVI TORAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 819 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Justice B Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. This appeal is ﬁled at the instance of writ petitioner, who seeks to assail the orders passed by the learned single Judge in interlocutory application in WVMP No. 2692 of 2006 in WPMMP No. 18242 of 2005 in WP No. 14359 of 2005 whereby the interim stay obtained by him was vacated at the instance of the respondent on ﬁling a vacate application along with counter affidavit. De hors, the several contentions which are sought to be urged on behalf of both sides, the undisputed fact is that on the date when the matter is posted and orders under appeal were passed, the learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner was not present and he was not heard. It was stated that the counsel for appellant /writ petitioner could not attend the court due to ill health of his mother. Therefore, there was no proper opportunity to have a say on behalf of the petitioner. Taking note of the same and with a view to give an opportunity so that appropriate orders can be passed upon hearing both the parties, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for afresh disposal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J DATE:8.9.2008 Tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 819 of 2008 Date: 8.9.2008