THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13567 OF 2010 DATED 2ND JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Pathuri Mahesh Kumar Goud And Others. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Range Reddy District, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respodents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13567 OF 2010 O R D E R The complaint of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, having entertained the Tenancy Appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, did not pass any orders on their stay application. The petitioners filed the said appeal against the order of the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.L/141/2008 dated 30.11.2009. The appeal was taken on file by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, as Tenancy Appeal No.E2/6299/2009. Copy of the appeal along with the stay application are placed on record, which demonstrate that the same were filed in December, 2009. This writ petition was filed in June, 2010 complaining of the inaction on the part of the Appellate Authority in passing orders on the stay application. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on case law, submitted that the inaction of the statutory authority in passing orders on the stay application violates his clients’ interests and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court requires to be exercised on the facts obtaining in the case. I am however disinclined to adjudicate this writ petition on merits as the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy and the same is pending. Mere indolence on the part of the statutory authority in discharge of its quasi judicial functions is not a reason for this Court to step in, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, for giving interim protection pending the statutory remedy. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR V/s. DUNLOP INDIA LTD.[1], Article 226 is not intended to be used for circumventing statutory remedies. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, viz., MANDA RAM REDDY V/s. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, URBAN LAND CEILING DEPARTMENT[2] and SHAIKH GULAB CHANDU KHATIK V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[3], are distinguishable on facts as both the cases pertained to rejection of the stay applications by the statutory authorities. In the present case such stage has not arisen as the statutory authority is yet to hear and apply its mind to the stay application and the appeal filed before it. Needless to state, such authorities are required to be prompt in discharge of their quasi judicial functions under the statute, so that the rights of parties are given timely protection. Delay on the part of statutory authorities in disposing of stay applications not only engenders futility of adjudication in some cases, but also causes distrust in the system. Such situations need to be avoided. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the threshold directing the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Appellate Authority, to consider the stay application filed by the petitioners in Tenancy Appeal No. E2/6299/2009 after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass reasoned orders within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 2ND JULY, 2010 Note: Issue copy by Monday. (B/O) PGS/VGSR [1] AIR 1985 SC 330 [2] 2006(2) ALT 371 [3] AIR 1979 BOMBAY 71