HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE NO: W.P.No. 21920 of 2007 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 4) 18-6-2009 HCJ & RSR, J GR,J The grievance in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent has not disposed of the revision petition dt. 13.3.2007 filed by the petitioners under Section 90 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent dt. 12.6.2009, it is stated that by the order dt. 7.8.2007 in File No. F2/718/2007, earlier representations of the petitioners dt. 11.8.2005 and 27.1.2007 were disposed of by the answering respondent pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No. 2990 of 2007. These representations are made by t h e petitioners inter alia alleging fraudulent inclusion of the names of certain persons including the names of respondents 5 to 10 herein in the revenue records relating to the lands in respect of which the petitioners’ father is asserted to have been issued Protected Tenancy Certificate under Section 32 of the said Act and seeking prosecution of the officers responsible for such interpolations in the revenue records without following the due process of law. The revision is however preferred by the petitioners under Section 90 of the A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. This is a formal revision and the petitioners are aggrieved that no action has been taken on the said revision. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. It does not advert to the substantive grievance of the writ petition but takes credit for having disposed of the earlier representations made by the petitioners on 11.8.2005 and 27.1.2007 and that too pursuant to the orders in W.P.No. 2990 of 2007. The petitioners allege that this evasive response by the official respondents is an indication of the discriminatory attitude by the State towards the members belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe who are protected by the SCs/STs (POA) Act and that the petitioners cannot be discriminated on account of their social status. The respondents in particular the respondents 1 and 2 have an obligation to file a more sensitive counter affidavit duly responsive to the allegations in the writ petition instead of a vague counter affidavit as earlier filed by the 2nd respondent. Conscious of the irrelevant counter affidavit he has to deal with, the Asst. Government Pleader seeks time to file a better counter affidavit. The respondents should peruse the writ petition, apply their mind and draft a response thereof. The counter affidavit shall be filed by the 2nd respondent and no other inferior to 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, list the W.P. on 25.6.2009 for counter of 2nd respondent. _______________ 18th June, 2009. Krb. SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE