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.40 OF 2010 Dt.29.1.2010 Between: Y. Aruna … Appellant And Karri Srinivas and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B. Kranthi Kiran, for Sri Ch. Samson Babu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri J. Prabhakar Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri T. Bheemanna, for Sri S. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 9: 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.40 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Respondent No.8 in Writ Petition No.24596 of 2009 filed this Writ Appeal, feeling aggrieved by order dt.24.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he set aside the endorsement dt.6.10.2009 issued by respondent No.3 and directed respondent No.3 to consider the explanation to be submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and pass appropriate orders. We have heard Sri B. Kranthi Kiran, representing Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners, and Sri T. Bhemanna, representing Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. By the endorsement dt.6.10.2009 impugned in the Writ Petition, respondent No.3 cancelled the assessment made in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said endorsement was questioned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the short ground that the impugned endorsement does not show that either show cause notices were issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners or that the explanations, if any, submitted by them were considered. The learned Single Judge termed the impugned endorsement as cryptic and held to be violative of the principles of natural justice. Having examined the endorsement issued by respondent No.3, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The interests of the appellant, at whose instance, the assessment was cancelled, are not affected because while setting aside the endorsement issued by respondent No.3, the learned Single Judge permitted respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners to file explanations within one week and directed respondent No.3 to consider the said explanations and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.118 of 2010, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.1.2010 bnr