ORDER : 1. M/s. Annapoorna Financiers, registered partnership firm represented by Joint Managing Partner Gogineni Sudhakara Rao filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the Endorsement of Respondent No. 3 vide R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and Endorsement of Respondent No. 4 vide R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 in refusing to update the record of rights and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac. 12-76 cents in Sy. Nos. 157, 137/1 and 137/2 of Pallapukodabu and Ac. 2-08 cents in Sy. No. 16 of Thamarabba villagesd of Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the endorsements issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to update the record of rights and issue pattadar passbooks in respect of the agricultural land of this petitioner. 2. One Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi approached this petitioner, borrowed an amount of Rs. 69 lakhs on three different occasions, executed three promissory notes and deposited the title deeds, created mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Both Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi failed to discharge the mortgage debt. Thereupon the petitioner filed O.S. No. 142 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against both Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi, the mortgagers, for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage by sale of property. 3. A preliminary decree and final decree were passed for sale of the property. Thereupon, an execution petition in E.P. No. 16 of 2017 was filed and brought the property for sale. The decree holder having obtained permission to bid and set off, was declared as highest bidder and the Executing Court issued sale certificate. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 78 of 2018 for delivery of property and accordingly through process of the Court, the property was delivered to this petitioner on 20.09.2018. 4. The decree holder having obtained permission to bid and set off, was declared as highest bidder and the Executing Court issued sale certificate. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 78 of 2018 for delivery of property and accordingly through process of the Court, the property was delivered to this petitioner on 20.09.2018. 4. On acquisition of right in immovable property in compliance of Section 4 of the Act, intimation was given to Respondent No. 4, who in-turn issued Endorsement directing the petitioner to file an appeal before Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 3 by proceedings, directed to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds subject to the result in O.S. No. 5 of 2019 filed by the unofficial respondents. The petitioner also filed O.S. No. 23 of 2019 along with I.A. No. 45 of 2019 against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 before the competent civil court and obtained permanent injunction, restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner acquired right in immovable property, an intimation is to be made under Section 4(1) of the Act to mutate the name of this petitioner in the revenue records. Accordingly, he submitted an intimation through online, but the same was rejected by Respondent No. 4 while advising this petitioner to prefer an appeal, since the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were already recorded in the revenue records along ago, the names of the petitioners cannot be mutated in the revenue records. 6. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal is preferred before Respondent No. 3/Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn issued peculiar direction to mutate the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, instead of passing an order on the application of this petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. At the same time, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 violated the procedure prescribed under the Act and such Endorsements cannot be sustained in law; therefore, sought a writ of mandamus as stated above. 7. The unofficial respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 filed counter affidavit raising the following conditions. 8. The first and foremost contention raised by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is that, writ petition is not maintainable, in view of availability of alternative remedy under the Act and on this ground alone, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. 7. The unofficial respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 filed counter affidavit raising the following conditions. 8. The first and foremost contention raised by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is that, writ petition is not maintainable, in view of availability of alternative remedy under the Act and on this ground alone, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The petitioners purchased land in an extent of Ac. 10-00 cents in Sy. No. 157, Ac. 1-30 cents in Sy. No. 137/1, Ac. 1-31 cents in Sy. No. 137/2, Ac. 3-07 cents in Sy. No. 137/4, Ac. 1-13½ cents in Sy. No. 151-2 of Pallapu Kodabu village, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District; Ac. 2-08 cents in Sy. No. 16, Ac. 0-50 cents in Sy. No. 15/3 and Ac. 0-50 cents in Sy. No. 15/5 of Thambarabbu village, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, totaling an extent of Ac. 19-89½ cents along with certain extent of land owned by Kodali Srinivasa Rao and his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi. Kodali Srinivasa Rao and his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi jointly sold the above mentioned land to Mr. Adireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs. Adireddy Venkatalakshmi under registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.12007 vide Document No. 700/2007 and delivered possession to them. Subsequently, Mr. Adireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs. Adireddy Venkatalakshmi executed a Registered General Power of Attorney vide Document No. 15 of 2007 in favour of Nallamilli Venkata Reddy and two others on 15.05.2007 to deal with the properties. The said General Power of Attorney holders representing their principals sold the aforesaid property of Ac. 19-89½ cents to Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 vide different sale deeds vide document numbers 419/2009, 420/2009, 421/2009, 422/2009 and 875/2010 on various dates. It is contended that, Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are closely related to one another and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property jointly, raised palm oil tope in the land. 10. It is contended that the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land alleging that the said property belongs to the firm and that they have no right over the said property. One Mr. G. Venkata Ramana filed O.S. No. 245 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram and Mr. One Mr. G. Venkata Ramana filed O.S. No. 245 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram and Mr. Sudhakar filed his written statement in the suit contending that his firm filed O.S. No. 142 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against his vendors vendor alleging that they have created an equitable mortgage by depositing their sale deed and the said suit was decreed in favour of the firm. It is further contended that, the suit is collusive and therefore, mutating the name of this petitioner is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition finally. 11. The official respondents did not file any counter affidavit. 12. During hearing, Sri. S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 issued Endorsements in violation of the procedure under Section 5 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Rules. No opportunity was provided to make representation before rejecting the request of this petitioner by Respondent No. 4. At the same time, Respondent No. 3 also issued the Endorsement to mutate the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 on the application made by this petitioner, which is contrary to Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed, declaring the Endorsement of Respondent No. 3 vide R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and Endorsement of Respondent No. 4 vide R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same, while directing the respondents to mutate the name of this petitioner in the revenue records. 13. Whereas, Sri. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 contended that, when an alternative remedy is available to this petitioner and without exhausting alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, the Endorsements are totally in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein and no irregularity is committed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in issuing those Endorsements and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supported the impugned endorsements. 15. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. 3 and 4 in issuing those Endorsements and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supported the impugned endorsements. 15. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner be non-suited on the sole ground that an alternative remedy by way of revision under the Andhra Pradesh rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively followed the procedure in issuing Endorsements R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 respectively. If not, whether the Endorsements be declared as illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set-aside and consequential direction to mutate the name of this petitioner and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds be issued? POINT Nos. 1 and 2: 16. As the two points are interconnected to each other, I find it expedient to decide points by common discussion and record findings. 17. Undoubtedly, the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting alternative statutory remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 raised a specific ground that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner approached this Court without availing statutory remedy under the Act. Undoubtedly, statutory remedy under Section 9 is available against an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. But, that by itself is not a bar against exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. In Genpact India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 the Division Bench of the Apex Court held that, when a statutory remedy is available under the statute, the Court would not normally entertain the writ petition against assessment order. The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which normally would not be entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which normally would not be entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The assessee may thus, not only lose a remedy of having the matter considered on factual facets of the matter but would also stand deprived of regular channels of challenges available to it under the hierarchy of fora available under the Act. 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 the Apex Court held as follows: “Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. [See: State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 , Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 , Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 and State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 499 ].” 20. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available against the endorsements under challenge in the writ petition, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature. 21. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available against the endorsements under challenge in the writ petition, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature. 21. The Apex Court time and again laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances the Court can exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that there is no absolute bar to entertain such writ petitions, more particularly, when the authorities passed an order in violation of principles of natural justice or without considering any law or without affording any opportunities to the parties. 22. In Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 2019 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29040 of 2018 dated 29.07.2019 the Division Bench of Apex Court was called upon to decide whether the existence of an alternate remedy would create a bar on High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, it held “the existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Courts writ jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court.” Explaining that the court added that courts had themselves imposed certain constraints on the exercise of their writ jurisdiction to ensure that the jurisdiction did not become an appellate mechanism for all disputes within a High Courts territorial jurisdiction, the bench said “the intention behind this self-imposed rule is clear. If High Courts were to exercise their writ jurisdiction so widely as to regularly override statutory appellate procedures, they would themselves become inundated with a vast number of cases to the detriment of the litigants in those cases.” This would also defeat the legislature's intention in enacting statutory appeal mechanisms to ensure the speedy disposal of cases. The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. 23. The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. 23. Recently, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 334 summarized the following four principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy, despite availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the Act: “28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution. (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 24. (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 24. The same principles were reiterated by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in M/s. Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited vs. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021. 25. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, when an order was passed prima-facie, contrary to the law laid and violative of principles of natural justice, this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bar is self imposed restriction, however, in view of the principles laid down by Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, entertaining the writ petition, despite availability of statutory remedy is purely discretionary and not an absolute bar. 26. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(3) read with Rule 19 of the Rules are violated while issuing Endorsements impugned in the writ petition, issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The respondents did not state anything about compliance of these two provisions prescribed under the statute. In view of the specific contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to advert to Section 4(1) of the Act. Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it. Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner sent intimation to the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation of the name of the petitioner. 27. According to Section 5(1) of the Act, i.e. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination, provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. 28. Thus, the first proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act mandates of opportunity of making a representation to the applicant when the recording authority decided to refuse the request for updating entries in the revenue records and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The proviso is nothing but affording an opportunity to this petitioner by following principles of natural justice. 29. To put it differently, the procedure prescribed under the proviso is nothing but a statutory prescription to issue notice before refusing such requirement in compliance of Rule 5(1), as the rule of principles of natural justice is imbedded in the proviso. In the absence of compliance of proviso to Rule 5(1), it is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 5(1). 30. A bare look at the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 4, it is clear that, no notice was issued before passing such Endorsements to this petitioner as mandated under Rule 5(1). Therefore, issue of such Endorsement by Respondent No. 4 is not only illegality and contrary to the principles of natural justice, but also contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain a writ petition against such an order. 31. Therefore, the Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain a writ petition against such an order. 31. Coming to the order passed by Respondent No. 3, it is clear that Respondent No. 3 issued a direction, which reads as follows: “In the said mater vide Memo R.C. No. 1135/2018/F/23-11-2018, Smt. Tetala Satyavathi W/o Rama Reddy has submitted an appeal submitting her objections. On the said appeal, Smt. Nallamilli Bullammayi and others, filed their counters and further filed a suit for declaration of title deeds sand seeking permanent injunction against Sri. Gogineni Sudhakar vide O.S. No. 05/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Choddavaram and the said matter is pending. In the same matter the Joint Managing Director Sri. Gogineni Sudhakarrao S/o Appaiah, Annapurna Financier has obtained Injunction order vide I.A. No. 45/2019 in O.S. No. 23/2019. Hence, the Tahsildar, Devarapalli is hereby ordered to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the Joint Managing Partner Sri. Gogineni Suhakarrao S/o Apaiah of Annapurna Financier, who has been issued pattadar books on being acquired he lands in Devarapalli Mandalam, Palledpukodabu and Thamarabba Revenue Sy. Nos. 157, 137/1, 137/2 Extent c.12.76 cts and Sy. No. 16 Extent Ac. 2.08 cents, in compliance of order of the VII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No. 142/2009 being the auction purchaser in E.P. 16/2017 having acquired rights for a total extent Ac. 14.84 cents in the above survey numbers in consideration of the court orders in O.S. No. 5/12019.” 32. It is clear from the order that Respondent No. 3 issued a direction to Respondent No. 4, to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of this petitioner, in view of pendency of O.S. No. 142 of 2009 before the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, being the auction purchaser in E.P. No. 16 of 2017 having acquired rights for a total extent of Ac. 14-84 cents in the above survey numbers in consideration of the court orders in O.S. No. 5 of 2019. 33. 14-84 cents in the above survey numbers in consideration of the court orders in O.S. No. 5 of 2019. 33. When the petitioner himself submitted an application which was rejected and filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, instead of passing appropriate order, dismissed the appeal while directing to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of this petitioner without issuing any notice and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 5(1) of the Act and it is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act. 34. The Tahsildar/Respondent No. 4 herein in the impugned Endorsement in the writ petition i.e. R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 intimated to the petitioner that, in respect of petitioners application survey numbers, the then Tahsildar has granted pattadar pass books and title deeds and entered as wet lands, such pattadar pass books have to be cancelled as per Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The power to cancel the pattadar pass books vests with Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the petitioner was informed vide R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 that with regard to the cancellation of granted pattadar pass books in the name of cultivators vide Khata numbers shown in the table of the Endorsement, that the petitioner may prefer an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act. But, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in the name of this petitioner in the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Tahsildar/Respondent No. 4, which is contrary to the procedure. Ven the objections made by Respondent No. 8 before the Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of the notice cannot be treated as an application for issue of pattadar passbooks in the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 violated the procedure prescribed under law. According to Sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. 35. 35. When an appeal is preferred, a notice of hearing is to be issued to this petitioner, affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions regarding his claim. But, no such notice was issued to this petitioner to put-forth his objections. Hence, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to this petitioner while disposing of the appeal. 36. As discussed above, there is any amount of violation of procedure prescribed under law, while passing Endorsements vide R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. When Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 grossly violated mandatory procedure prescribed under law, which is not in the nature of principles of natural justice, this Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above. Those two Endorsements are liable to be set-aside, declaring them as illegal and arbitrary, but a positive direction cannot be issued to mutate the name of this petitioner to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, for the simple reason that a specific procedure is prescribed both under Section 5 of the Act and Rules 17 to 19 of the Rules read with Rule 5(2)(a) to (e) of the Rules are to be complied during enquiry. In those circumstances, the Court may set-aside the Endorsements impugned in the writ petition and direct Respondent No. 4 to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 37. Hence, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable and the Endorsements impugned in the writ petition i.e. R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, are declared as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the endorsements; while directing Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the application strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order and pass reasoned orders strictly adhering to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 38. In the result, writ petition is allowed-in-part, declaring the Endorsements impugned in the writ petition i.e. R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 issued by Respondent Nos. 38. In the result, writ petition is allowed-in-part, declaring the Endorsements impugned in the writ petition i.e. R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the endorsements; while directing Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the application strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order and pass reasoned orders strictly adhering to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 39. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.