Andhra Pradesh High Court Flags Rising Trend Of Mandamus Petitions Challenging Quasi-Judicial Orders; Explains Difference With Certiorari
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that it has lately noticed a growing pattern wherein litigants are filing petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus while challenging quasi-judicial orders passed by authorities, thereby overlooking the fundamental distinction between a writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari.In this regard, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,“… this Court...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that it has lately noticed a growing pattern wherein litigants are filing petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus while challenging quasi-judicial orders passed by authorities, thereby overlooking the fundamental distinction between a writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari.
In this regard, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,
“… this Court is constrained to make the observations regarding the fundamental difference since a large number of writ petitions are being filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus alone, without asking for Certiorari.”
"This Court, of late, noticed that writ petitions are being filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus challenging the quasi-judicial orders passed by the authorities. The underlying difference between a Writ of Mandamus and Certiorari was almost ignored. A Writ of Mandamus is a command to act and to compel the performance of duty. Whereas, a writ of certiorari is a corrective and supervisory will be issued to quash the illegal orders already passed.”
The observations were propounded in a writ petition filed by the Sarpanch of Venkatachalam Gram Panchayat challenging her removal from office over allegations of financial irregularities.
The petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch in 2021, faced allegations of misappropriating public funds from the Gram Panchayat and was suspended from the post in 2025 by an order of the District Collector (Respondent 2). An investigation conducted by the authorities reportedly found that significant amounts of Panchayat funds were misappropriated and transferred to her husband and the Panchayat Secretary. She was also alleged to have misused funds from the general accounts and the 15th Finance Commission grants.
Challenging the order of Respondent 2, the petitioner argued that the same violated principles of natural justice, and there were no independent findings of Respondent 2 in relation to the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
In contrast, the State argued that the petitioner had approached the Court without availing the effective alternative remedy under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It was also submitted that the petitioner had failed to attend the inquiry, despite notice being served by the District Collector.
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner had failed to attend and participate in the inquiry at the office of Respondent 2. In this regard, the Single-Judge stated,
“… since the petitioner opined that the 2nd respondent already concluded against her, the petitioner did not attend the office of the 2nd respondent. Thus, the 2nd respondent did not violate the Audi Alterum Partum, a species of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, approached this court with unclean hands vis-à-vis attending the office on 11.02.2026. Since, the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands, she is not entitled to the equitable and discretionary relief envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
On the aspect whether owing to the petitioner's non-participation in the personal hearing, the authority could decide the issue against her without recording an independent finding, the Court noted that the petitioner, from the beginning, had not cooperated with the authorities, promoting them to complete the enquiry with the help of records and documents available in the office. As serious allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of significantly large amounts was involved, the Court remarked,
“… the petitioner should have cooperated during the enquiry or availed the opportunity of attending the office of the 2nd respondent. A careful perusal of the explanation Ex.P5, the petitioner did not deny the allegations levelled against her vis-à-vis the misappropriation of funds and mismanagement of funds. The entire explanation revolves around the invocation of Section 249-B of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the alleged infraction of the Principles of Natural Justice. In fact, the 2nd respondent recorded independent findings in the proceedings impugned. The petitioner could not rebut the charges vis-à-vis misappropriation of funds etc…”
The Court also concluded that the petitioner had approached the Court without availing the efficacious alternative remedy provided under the statute.
In this backdrop, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 4715 of 2026
Case Title: MANDALA RAJESHWARI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors