The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed  the officials of the concerned Department to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments over the subject land and any other lands belonging to their Department, within a period of two months and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice, issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four months.   

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu allowed the PIL filed alleging illegal construction  in the Government Elementary School at Pallapulanka, Addankivarilanka Gram Panchayat, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District.

The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of individuals, was considered in detail by the  Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. 
In the said judgment, the  Supreme Court, having noted its earlier decisions in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu reported in 1999 (6) SCC 464; Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (8) SCC 733 and Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215   (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras]), issued the following directions :-

“22. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose, the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.”

Despite the directions of the  Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) as noted above, no steps are being taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the government lands. As the public authorities are failing in their duties in protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use of the general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching the High  Court to intervene and direct the public authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments , the Court observed.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that naming of a particular : town or a district in the name of any politician, freedom fighter, philanthropist, saint or any other popular personality is in the domain of policy decisions of the State Government. It is not an issue which can be adjudicated nor can a mandamus be issued to the State Government directing to name a district in the name of a particular personality.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kethi Reddy Jagadishwara Reddy to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner to rename Nandyal District as Sri Uyyalavada Narasimha Reddy District , as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to rename Nandyal District as Sri Uyyalavada Narasimha Reddy District, by duly considering the petitioner’s representation dated 01.06.2022.

After hearing the parties at length the Court noted that the State of Andhra Pradesh recently reorganized the existing 13 districts into 26 districts on the rationale of forming one district for each parliamentary constituency. While reorganizing the districts, most of the newly formed districts have been named after parliamentary constituency headquarters, whereas some of the districts have been named after freedom fighters, former Chief Ministers, philanthropists etc.

According to the petitioner, while naming new districts, the State Government ignored Sri Uyyalavada Narasimha Reddy, the first freedom fighter hailing from Banaganapalle area within Nandyal parliamentary constituency, which is now named as Nandyal District. Thus, it is prayed that, having regard to the contribution of Sri Uyyalavada Narasimha Reddy during freedom struggle, Nandyal District should be named after him by allowing the representation filed by the petitioner on 01.06.2022.

“For issuance of a writ of mandamus, petitioner must demonstrate that, while not granting the prayer made in the writ petition, the State Government has violated any statutory or legal right of the petitioner or any member of the public. There is no legislation setting out parameters following which a district would be named. In such a situation, the decision of the State Government is in the domain of policy decision based on public opinion, having element of subjectivity”, observed the Bench.

Further the Court held that in the absence of any statutory or legal right of the petitioner or any other individual having been violated while naming the newly formed Nandyal District, the PIL is not a fit case where a writ of mandamus can be issued in the terms prayed for by the petitioner.

“The writ petition (public interest litigation) being bereft of any substance deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed by the Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has disposed of a Public interest Litigation (PIL) on the failure of the respondents to constitute a Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the newly formed Kakinada District.

The petition filed by Animal Rescue Organisation further raised the grievance that in the recent floods of the Godavari river, a large number of cattle were dislocated from their habitat and they are not given proper food, shelter etc.

Two representations, dated 16.07.2022 and 20.07.2022, were also given to the respondents. These were apparently not disposed of, alleged the petitioner.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu opined that keeping the PIL pending is not really called for since two representations are said to have been submitted on 16.07.2022 and 20.07.2022 respectively.

“There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the contents of the said representations and to dispose of the same on their own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” directed the High Court while disposing of the PIL.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that certain irregularities were committed in the admission of unofficial respondents in the NTR University of Health Sciences.

The petitioner is a reputed doctor, who is a member of Three-Men Expert Committee, appointed by the High Court in W.P.No.11018 of 2019 alleged that the NTR University of Health Science (Respondent No. 2) has committed certain errors and violations in following G.O.Rt.No.550, dated 30.07.2001, G.O.Rt.No.111, dated 13.08.2019, G.O.Rt.No.159, dated 04.12.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 13.11.2020 while granting admission to unofficial respondents.

After hearing the  counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu is of the opinion that if G.O.Rt.No.550 is in fact not followed or is violated, the parties affected by the same should be before the High Court. 

Even assuming for a moment that the admissions of unofficial respondents in the open competition seat is against G.O.Rt.No.550, the candidates who are affected by the said action of the respondent-University should have a grievance and should approach the High Court for redressal of the grievance. The petitioner, who is aged about 53 years and is a president of Medico Parents Association, cannot espouse the cause of the students who have been purportedly denied their admission by violating the G.O.Rt.No.550. 

The Court opined that no substantial public interest that is espoused in the writ and there is no public harm or injury which has to be redressed.  

“On the anvil of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be noted that the petitioner has neither espoused the cause of poor, downtrodden or marginalized sections of society nor he is alleging defalcation of public money, rampant corruption or fraudulent activities of   Government. In fact, the Supreme Court guidelines on PILs clearly caution the Courts against entertaining PILs questioning admission to medical and other institutions.”

Further the Bench observed that the deponent in the PIL is also espousing the case on behalf of the Medico Parents Association, which has supposedly submitted a representation dated 12.04.2022, bringing to the notice of the respondent university certain lapses but the petitioner is not the said Medico Parents Association in the PIL. 
“Therefore, at the admission stage itself, this Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed holding that the present petitioner does not have the locus standi to move this application. No public interest is espoused and it is a private grievance that is being ventilated in this PIL,” the Court ordered.   

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction is invoked to protect the interest of oppressed class of citizenry and not for deciding pure legal issues, which should be left to be decided in an appropriate inter-party lis (suit).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu dismissed a PIL filed by President of Muslim Hakkula Porata Samithi, seeking declaration that the A P State Waqf Board, in collectingWaqf Fund on donations, nazaranas or presentations given by Muslim devotees toMasjids or Dargas or Anzuman Institutions belonging to the Waqf Board in the State,as illegal, void.

Through the PIL the Petitioner further seeks direction that A P State Waqf Board not to collect such Waqf Fund on donations, nazaranas or presentationsgiven by Muslim devotees to Masjids or Dargas or Anjuman Institutions belonging tothe Waqf Board.

The Bench noted that it has been stated in the writ affidavit that there are more than 3000 Masjids,Dargas and Anjuman Institutions belonging to the Waqf Board in the State of AndhraPradesh, where Muslim devotees offer donations. Waqf Board has been collecting Waqf Fund from Masjids, Dargahs and Anjuman Institutions out of the donations,najaranas or presentations given to them by Muslim devotees, treating the same asincome derived from income-yielding establishments.

A P State Waqf Board received areport dated 08.01.2021 in respect of Ulumul-Quran Educational and CharitableTrust, declaring the same as a Waqf Institution and, thereafter, donations receivedfrom Muslim devotees have been exempted from being treated as income to betaxed, by applying Section 72(1) (v) (g) of the Waqf Act, 1995 therefore, the same treatment should have been extended to such institutions and bynot doing so, the provision contained in Section 72 of the Act is violated.

Further the Bench observed that the papers annexed to the petition do not reveal any direction from the A P State Waqf Board issued to any particular Masjid, Dargah or Anjuman Institute Compelling them to donate to the Waqf Fund and it appears that such Masjids,Dargahs or Anjuman Institutions have been contributing voluntarily to the Waqf Fund Maintained by the A P State Waqf Board . In the absence of any such order or communication from the A P State Waqf Board , it cannot be said that there is compulsion onany Masjid, Dargah or Anjuman Institution to donate to the Waqf Fund , held the Court.

“It is settled that writ courts do not interfere in the societal activities of any particular religion. In any case, the dispute brought before this Court does not relate to any such activity, which is causing an adverse impact or injustice to the poor,marginalized or downtrodden sections of the society. Public Interest Litigation Jurisdiction is invoked to protect the interest of oppressed class of citizenry and not for deciding pure legal issues, which should be left to be decided in an appropriate inter-party lis”, the order reads.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the state Forest department to consider a Forest Beat Officer for ad hoc promotion, since the charges pending against him were not grave offence and did not involve any moral turpitude embezzlement or dereliction of duty.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, while considering the petition on July 24, observed that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he was not diligent in guarding the red sandal logs, but as noticed by the Enquiry Officer himself, the petitioner was not on duty on the day on which the alleged offence took place.

Petitioner was given a charge memo on January 14, 2019 and informed that an enquiry will be held against him. The enquiry was in fact conducted and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to the effect that the petitioner was not even on duty on the date of alleged offence that took place.

As per the enquiry report, the incident of theft occurred on September 17, 2018 on the night of September 18, 2018. The petitioner was on night duty on September 16, 2018. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges framed against him are not proved and he was exonerated. Thereafter, on August 16, 2019, a copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner and he also submitted an explanation to the same.

The Counsel for the petitioner argued that till now, no action has taken place and the juniors of the petitioner are being promoted denying the case of the petitioner only on the ground that charges are pending against him.

The Government Pleader does not dispute the events and the dates mentioned by the Counsel. The Enquiry Officer gave a report exonerating the petitioner is also accepted. It is also admitted that an explanation was also submitted after the enquiry was over to the notice issued.

The instructions of the Government Pleader are that on November 20, 2020, final proceedings have been commenced and they are being submitted to the Government based on the enquiry report. He also admitted that since November 20, 2020, the inquiry is still “under process”. The counter field is also to the same effect. The fact that in November 2020 further proceedings have taken place is a subsequent event brought to the notice of the Court.

Both the Counsel drew the attention of this Court to G.O. dated 20.06.1999. The  G.O. also permits the State to give ad hoc promotions also, if the offence involved does not have any moral turpitude.

Also Read: Delhi HC dismisses PIL on online games addiction among children, asks Centre to decide on representation

Therefore, the Court opined that Petitioner should have been already considered for ad hoc promotion since the offence is not a grave offence and does not involve any moral turpitude embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty. The findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be ignored, particularly when it held that the Petitioner was not even on duty on the day on which the alleged theft took place.

The  Bench further opined that the case of the Petitioner should be considered for promotion. The denial of the promotion in this case itself is a punishment that has been imposed despite the exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, the Judge said.

“The delay is writ large and is very clear. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for promotion despite the long standing and pending proceedings. It is needless to say that such promotion that is granted shall be subject to the result of the departmental proceedings”, the order reads.