IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6969 of 2005 Between: B.Raja, S/o.Sankaraiah, Retired Employees, R/o.11-6-476, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Siddipet, Medak District. 3 Akkepalli Nagesh, S/o.Akkepalli Sathaiah, R/o.Bheemunivaragattu, Toopran village & Mandal, Medak District. 4 The Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 The Mandal Revenue officer, Toopran Village & Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: (1) AGP FOR REVENUE FOR R1,R2,R4 AND R5 (2) NONE APPEARED FOR R3. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6969 of 2005 ORDER: Though multiple reliefs are sought in this writ petition, Sri V.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated that the only aspect which requires to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is whether respondent No.1 was entitled in law to seek clariﬁcation from the Government, as he did by his letter dated 25.02.2005, with respect to the maintainability of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Siddipet, Medak District, ﬁled against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Toopran Village & Mandal, Medak District. 2. The petitioner ﬁled appeal purportedly under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, appellate authority, before respondent No.1. While considering the said appeal, respondent No.1 addressed letter seeking the abovementioned clariﬁcation from the Government. Under Section 7 of the Act, any person aggrieved by any order or decision made by the Tribunal under Section 5 or 6 may within sixty days from the date of communication of the order or decision file an appeal to the appellate Tribunal subject to payment of such fees as may be prescribed. In entertaining and deciding the appeals, the appellate authority exercises Quasi Judicial Functions. If an appeal is ﬁled before respondent No.1, he shall decide the same with reference to the statutory provisions. Therefore, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to seek clariﬁcation by combining his role as a part of the Executive apparatus of the State. After examination of the statutory provisions, respondent No.1 has to dispose of the appeal on merits or refuse to entertain the same, depending on the conclusion he arrives at after examination of the statutory provisions. If he is satisﬁed that he has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, he is bound to adjudicate the case on merits, and if his conclusion is otherwise, he has to reject the appeal. 3. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 29.08.2008 v v