Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside Interim Order Granted Because Counsel Could Not State Grounds for Certiorari

A Division Bench held that an interim order cannot rest on a respondent's counsel failing to answer a judicial query; the writ petitioner must independently make out a prima facie case.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has set aside an interim order that a learned Single Judge granted in a writ petition solely because the respondent's counsel could not answer a query about the three grounds for exercising certiorari jurisdiction. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta, deciding Writ Appeal No. 483 of 2026 on 23 June 2026, held that interim relief cannot be founded on the weakness of the respondents' case. The writ petitioner is required to stand on the strength of the petitioner's own case and must prima facie satisfy the court of the grounds for the issuance of a writ of certiorari before any interim direction can be made.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

The underlying writ petition, W.P. No. 10221 of 2026, was filed by Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha and Smt. Sabhavat Usha Kalyani (respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal) challenging an order dated 02 January 2026 passed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, in R.P. No. 06 of 2025. That order had upheld a direction passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.Dis. No. 125 of 2024, dated 18 February 2025. The writ petitioners contended that those orders were arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

The appellants before the Division Bench — Kudithi Gurayya and Kudithi Srinivasa Rao, both residents of Sowbhagyarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam — were respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition. They were represented by Sri V.V. Satish. Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal were represented by Ms. M. Abhigna, appearing for Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, and the State respondents (respondents 3 to 6) were represented by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

The Impugned Interim Order

At the stage of admission of the writ petition on 17 April 2026, the learned Single Judge raised a query to the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition asking what the three grounds are to exercise certiorari jurisdiction. The counsel was unable to answer. On that basis alone, the Single Judge passed an interim direction as prayed for by the writ petitioners, listing the matter after Summer Vacation 2026.

The operative portion of that interim order, as reproduced in the Division Bench judgment, reads: “When this Court queried a question to the learned counsel for the respondents as to what are the three grounds to exercise Certiorari jurisdiction, he is unable to answer the query raised by this Court. Hence, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for, for a period of six (06) weeks.”

There was no examination, even at a prima facie level, of the writ petitioners' case or of the respondents' case before the interim direction was issued.

The Division Bench's Reasoning

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, authoring the judgment for the Bench, identified two distinct infirmities in the impugned order.

The first concerns the proper basis for granting interim relief. The Bench drew on settled principle: a plaintiff in a suit must succeed on the strength of the plaintiff's own case and cannot succeed merely on the weakness of the defendant's case. That same principle applies equally to a writ petitioner seeking an interim order. A counsel's inability to articulate the legal grounds for certiorari cannot, of itself, become the foundation for granting the interim prayer.

The second infirmity is the complete absence of any prima facie consideration. The Bench noted that it is the writ petitioner's burden to satisfy the court, at least prima facie, of the grounds for issuance of a writ of certiorari and of the grounds involved in the writ petition, so as to make out a case for interim relief. In the present matter, the respondents had not themselves challenged the revenue orders. The writ petitioner was therefore required to demonstrate an independent basis for the interim direction sought.

The Division Bench also pointed out that neither the petitioners' case nor the respondents' case received even a prima facie consideration before the interim order was passed. This absence of any application of mind to the merits of the interim prayer rendered the order unsustainable.

A Coordinate Bench had, on 05 May 2026, already granted interim suspension of the Single Judge's order while admitting the writ appeal, directing that the suspension would operate till the next date of hearing.

Position of the Writ Petition and Interim Application

Setting aside the impugned interim order did not amount to a final decision on the writ petitioners' claim for interim relief. The Division Bench clarified that W.P. No. 10221 of 2026 remains pending and that the interim application within it also remains pending. That application is to be considered in accordance with law, with an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 urged urgency in the consideration of the interim prayer before the Single Judge. The Division Bench noted that the appropriate course is open to the writ petitioners to pursue before the Single Judge in the writ petition.

Order

Writ Appeal No. 483 of 2026 was allowed on 23 June 2026. The interim order dated 17 April 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10221 of 2026 was set aside. The writ petition and the interim application therein were left open for consideration by the Single Judge in accordance with law, with hearing to all parties. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ appeal were closed.