Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 655 (AP)

D. G. Nagi Reddy v. Shaik Khader Basha

2025-05-06

K.MANMADHA RAO, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2025
Judgment : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The 1 st respondent herein had filed W.P.No.22974 of 2024, contending that the official respondents, in the Writ Petition, were not taking necessary steps to stop illegal constructions, in the land, to an extent of Ac.9- 86 cents, belonging to him, in Sy.No.658/2, of Bodumulluvaripalle Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent had moved I.A.No.2 of 2024, seeking to implead the private persons, who are said to be undertaking illegal constructions on the land claimed by the 1 st respondent, as the respondents 8 to 18 in the Writ Petition. This application was allowed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an Order, dated 13.02.2025. The Learned Single Judge after impleading these private persons as respondents 8 to 80 had also directed the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner to take out personal notice in respect of the newly impleaded Unofficial respondents. 3. Aggrieved by this Order of impleadment, dated 13.02.2025, the appellants herein have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the said Order needs to be set aside as notice of the said application was not given to the appellants, prior to the passing of the Order. He would also contend that the appellants herein, ought to have been given an opportunity to resist the implead application, and failure to give such an opportunity would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the Rules-8(a) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 [for short “The WRIT RULES , 1977”]. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the Judgment of a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of S.N. Mukerjee Vs. Union of India , [ (1990) 4 SCC 594 ] . Specific reliance is placed on Paragraph No.39 of the said Judgment, which is extracted herein below:- " Paragraph No.39:- The object of the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority." 6. For purposes of discussion, Rules-8(a) & 9(1) of the WRIT RULES , 1977, are extracted below:- “ Rules- 8(a):- Every petition or application shall soon after it is numbered, be posted for orders of the Court as to issue of rule nisi or notice to the respondents. The Court may, upon hearing the petitioner or applicant or his advocate, either direct rule nisi or notice to issue and pass such interim orders as it may deem necessary, or reject the petition or application. Provided that an application for an interim order shall not be posted for orders of court under this sub-rule, unless a period of not less than forty eight hours elapsed between the service of the copy of such application in accordance with Rule 7(a) on the Government Pleader or the Standing Counsel concerned; Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso, if the applicant files an affidavit stating that the object of obtaining an order would be defeated by the delay of forty-eight hours, the application may be posted for orders of court soon after it is numbered and the court may, if it opines that the object of granting the order would be defeated by the delay of forty-eight hours, pass an order in the absence of the Government Pleader or Standing Counsel concerned recording the reasons for the said opinion, fix a date for hearing and require the applicant to deliver to the Government Pleader or Standing- Counsel concerned a gist of the said order informing the date fixed for hearing and file into court on the day immediately following the day on which the order was passed, proof of its delivery. “ Rule-9(1):- Where any party against whom an interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceeding relating to, a petition under clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, without - (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order: and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.” 7. Rules-8(a) of the WRIT RULES , 1977, stipulates that every petition or application, after it is numbered, should be placed before the Court for a determination as to whether rule nisi should be issued or notice to the respondent should be issued and whether interim orders, as deemed necessary should be passed or whether the petition or application should be rejected. Similarly, Rule-9(1) of the WRIT RULES , 1977, states that every party, against whom an interim order is made, shall be furnished with copies of the petition and an opportunity of hearing by way of filing an application for vacation of such order should be given. A time limit of two weeks is also fixed for the disposal of any such application which is received. 8. Neither of these Rules stipulate that prior notice to the affected party is mandatory and that no interim order can be passed without notice to the affected party. 9. The passage, in the case of S.N. Mukerjee Vs. Union of India , 1990 4 SCC 594 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, laid down the principle that an administrative authority, exercising quasi-judicial functions should give reasons for passing an order so that the principles of natural justice which govern administrative action are applied. 9. The passage, in the case of S.N. Mukerjee Vs. Union of India , 1990 4 SCC 594 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, laid down the principle that an administrative authority, exercising quasi-judicial functions should give reasons for passing an order so that the principles of natural justice which govern administrative action are applied. 10. In the present case, the 1 st respondent has made an allegation against the private respondents 8 to 80, that they are in illegal occupation of his land and that the constructions made, by them, on this land are illegal. It is on account of these allegations, that the Learned Single Judge appears to have directed that these respondents be impleaded so that they have an opportunity of meeting the claims and allegations made against them by the 1 st respondent. 11. We do not find any reason to interfere with such an Order of the Learned Single Judge. It is in fact to the benefit of the appellants that they are being impleaded and are being given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against them by the 1 st respondent. 12. In that view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.