IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 10639 of 2001 Between: 1 N.Muragaiah, S/o. N.Chengaiah, Hindu, R/o. Gudipalli Harijanawada, Belong to Polakala Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 P.Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. P.Narasimha Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Gudipalle Village, Belong to Polakala Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 V.Balakrishna Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Thalambeduvaripalle, Belong to Polakala Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 V.Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o. Munaswamy, Hindu, R/o. Thalambeduvaripalli, Belong to Polakala Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, REp. by its Secretary, Panchayath Raj, Rural Development & Ralief Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of CErtiorari after calling for records from teh respondents relating to the notification issued by teh 2nd Respondent in Roc.No. 2969/95B4(Pts) dated 12-5-1995 as confirmed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.Rt.No. 839, Panchayath Raj Rural Development & Relief (Pts.IV) Department dt. 1-6-1995 and the consequential Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent in Roc.No. 2969/95 A6 (Pts.) dt. 25-4-2001 and Quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. A request is now made for grant time to file a counter affidavit. Since the writ petition is of the year 2001, I see no reason to accede to the request made for filing of the counter affidavit nearly 8 years after admission of the writ petition. The order, impugned in this writ petition, is the order passed in G.O.Rt.No.839, Panchayat Raj Rural Development & Relief (Pts.IV) Department dated 01-06-1995 whereby the revision petition filed by several persons, including the petitioners herein, was dismissed. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are residents of Polakala Gram Panchayat which comprises of two revenue villages and is divided into two mandal territorial constituencies. The second respondent issued notice dated 24.04.1995 asking the gram panchayat to show cause as to why the areas specified therein should not be deleted from the jurisdiction of Polakala Gram Panchayat for the purpose of constituting it as a separate gram Panchayat. Similarly, another notice dated 24.04.1995 was issued calling upon the Gram Panchayat to show cause as to why certain villages should not be deleted from the jurisdiction of Polakala Gram Panchayat for constituting a separate gram panchayat. Pursuant thereto, the Incharge sarpanch of Polakala Gram Panchayat is said to have passed a unanimous resolution seeking division of polakala gram panchayat on 12.05.1995. The petitioners filed W.P.No.10591 of 1995 questioning bifurcation of the Polakala Gram Panchayat. When it was brought to the notice of this Court on 21.06.1995 that a revision petition had been filed before the first respondent, this Court held that parallel remedies could not be resorted to and, while dismissing the writ petition, directed the first respondent, i.e. the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief Department, to dispose of the revision, if not already disposed of, expeditiously. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed which the petitioners claim not to be aware of till a notification was issued by the District Collector on 25.04.2001 showing the local areas excluded from Polakala Gram Panchayat. In the said proceedings dated 25.04.2001 a reference is made to the revision filed before the first respondent and that the said revision petition had been rejected on 01.06.1995. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that the petitioners were not heard before the said order was passed. While several contentions are raised both on merits, and for violation of principles of natural justice, I consider it wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the contentions on merits since a reading of the impugned order would show that the matter was heard on 24.05.1995 at 10.00 AM in the absence of the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners, or the others who are parties to the revision proceedings, were put on notice or were heard before the impugned order came to be passed. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be and is accordingly set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Needless to state that quashing of this order will not preclude the first respondent from passing an order afresh after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners to be heard and thereafter to pass an order in accordance with law. Since the interim order of this Court continues to remain in force for the past 8 years, and as the matter with regards bifurcation has been pending for the past decade and a half, it is but appropriate that the revision petition be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 25th February 2009 CVRK