IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.23725 of 2008 Between: Patti Rama Krishna. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Registration) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty. Counsel for the respondents: --- This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.1198, Revenue (Registration) Department, dated 18- 10-2008 issued by respondent No.1. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The village Sajjapuram was included under the Tanuku Sub-District for the purpose of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned notiﬁcation, a separate Registration Sub-District was created with Sajjapuram as headquarters, including Block Nos.20, 21 and 30 to 35 of Sajjapuram within the jurisdiction of the said Sub-District. The petitioner, who is a resident of Duvva village of Tanuku Mandal, called in question this G.O. in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while conceding that respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned G.O., however, contended that this G.O., is invalid as it did not contain any reasons in support thereof. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and not felt inclined to accept the same. Under Section 5 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to form Districts and Sub-Districts and alter the limits of such Districts and Sub-Districts. The only statutory requirement to be complied with by respondent No.1 while exercising this power is to notify formation of Districts and Sub- Districts and alteration of limits in the oﬃcial Gazette. The Act does not make it incumbent upon respondent No.1 to give reasons in support of exercising such power. The impugned order is purely administrative in nature in contrast to a judicial order. An administrative authority is not required to give reasons unless it is compelled to do so by the statute. In the absence of any such statutory requirement prescribed, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of reasons in the impugned order aﬀects its validity. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:31-10-2008 MNR