ARISELLI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent and Sri I. Gopal Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 4th respondent who was impleaded as per order dated 16-11-2006 in W.P.M.P. No.29640/2006.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed WVMP No.2415/2006 to vacate the interim order in W.P.M.P. No. 17573/2006 dated 12-10-2006. W.V.M.P.No.2382/2006 is filed by the proposed party, the present 4th respondent who came on record to vacate the said interim order. A reply affidavit also was filed by the writ petitioner. At the request of the Counsel representing the respective parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.

(3.) Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would contend that without prior notice or without any resolution, the terms and conditions agreed upon cannot be varied and in that view of the matter the writ petitioner is put to serious loss by virtue of the impugned order and hence the same had been questioned. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the impugned order and also the other relevant material placed before this Court and would submit that in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as the 2nd respondent made this order without authority the same is liable to be quashed.