The Andhra Pradesh High Court observes that a Writ Petition is maintainable even if there is an alternate remedy, in case where the principles of natural justice are not followed.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a Writ Petition holding that a Writ Petition is maintainable even in the presence of an alternate remedy, in case the principles of natural justice are not followed. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that an application for mutation of names of a land, which is said to have been purchased by the petitioners, had been rejected without following the mandatory procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Section 5(3) of the Act and argued that before any order was passed, the petitioner should have been put on notice, their contentions should have been heard and thereafter only the impugned order should have been passed. Apart from that he also points out that the order, dated 20.12.2020 is never communicated to them till 14.12.2021. 

The Court, after considering the submissions, opined that the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners insofar as they relate to Section 5 of the Act, were correct. A prima facie reading of the order shows that no notice was issued to the petitioners. Only two documents have been referred to in the order i.e., the mutation application made by the petitioner No.3 and the enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector. Beyond this there was no reference to any notice being issued etc. The report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, which was relied upon was not in the knowledge of the petitioners as per them.

The High Court observed thus:

“Keeping this writ petition pending is therefore not called for. Once there is a failure of rules of natural justice, even if there is an alternative remedy, a writ is maintainable. The law is well settled. Hence, the impugned order, dated 22.12.2020 as communicated by the endorsement dated 14.12.2021 is hereby set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to conduct a de novo enquiry into the application filed by the petitioners, strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and Rules there under.”

Polu Venkata Lakshmamma & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.