IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No : 1 3 7 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No. 27778 of 2010 Between: T. Prabhakar Rao s/o Venkatarathnam aged about 35 years, r/o Kolimibazar, Near Ambedkar Statue, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna district. … Appellant-Respondent No.3 V/s. Sri Shaik Kasim s/o Nagulmera, Occ. Daily Wage Earner, 9th Ward Member, Jaggaiahpet Municipal Council, R/o. H.No. 1-125, Near Mutyalamma Temple Road, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District & 12-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.R. AVULA Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D. Srinivas Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Sri S. Nageswara Reddy The Division Bench made the following Order: (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1 3 7 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No. 27778 of 2009. COMMON ORDER : (Per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in WVMP. 408 of 2010 in WPMP No. 36182 of 2009 in WP.No. 27778 of 2009. The Respondents 1 to 11 herein are the writ petitioners. They have instituted WP.No. 27778 of 2009 calling in question the validity of proceedings in RC.No. Spl.Officer/Elections-2009-1, dated 17-12-2009 passed by the second respondent. By the impugned order dated 17-12- 2009, the second respondent has treated the ward membership of the writ petitioners in Jaggaiahpet Municipal Council, Krishna district, to have been ceased. 2. On behalf of the writ petitioners several contentions have been canvassed and one of the important contentions relates to lack of reasons indicating the application of mind by the second respondent in passing the impugned order dated 17-12-2009. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the second respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain the question relating to disqualification said to have been incurred by the writ petitioners. 3. Be that as it may, when we have been taken through the impugned order dated 17-12-2009, it has left us in no doubt that it is basically and essentially lacking in reasons. The reasons are considered important as they indicate the application of mind. The application of mind only to the relevant factors and exclusion of irrelevant material from consideration, is one of the important areas open for judicial review of the orders passed by quasi-judicial agencies. The second respondent, when he was entertaining a complaint as to whether the writ petitioners have suffered disqualification or not, was in-fact discharging quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, fundamentally obligatory to have assigned reasons, indicating on what lines he had applied his mind to the facts and relevant circumstances brought before him. At the same time, the second respondent is also required to advert to the objections raised in response to the show cause notice by the petitioners. Only from the reasons available on record, a judicial reviewing authority will be able to assess the nature and extent of consideration meted out to these contentions. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained, for the lack of reasons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant quickly ceased the opportunity and submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded back for consideration afresh by the second respondent. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri Srinivas, though in principle agrees to this course of action, would however, submit that the writ petitioners may be provided with an opportunity to place the entire material available with them, in detail, before the second respondent and the second respondent may be directed to consider all the objections including the objections relating to the jurisdiction vested in him for deciding such a question. We consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as fair enough, deserving acceptance. 5. We therefore grant four weeks time from today for the writ petitioners to file their detailed objections before the second respondent and thereafter the second respondent may pass orders considered appropriate by him assigning appropriate reasons for his conclusions, within a further period of four weeks thereafter. The impugned order in the writ petition is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the second respondent. 5. With the consent of all the parties, we proceed to dispose of the writ appeal and writ petition without costs. 6. With this common order, the writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of. No costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 5, 2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1 3 7 OF 2010 AND WP.No. 27778 of 2009 (Common order) Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice Nooty Rama Mohana Rao) Circulation Entry No. 9 9 Date: 05-03-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L