Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10551 (AP)

Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad v. Union of India,

WP(PIL)/50/2025 · 2025-03-12

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Ravi Cheemalapati

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH ef TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEA/IALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 50 OF 7n9fi AMARAV Between: Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad. S/o. Kondamuri Nageswara 41 years, Occ; Agriculture and Pydikondala Street, Yanam - 533464. AadharNo. Rao, Aged D.No. 7-1-009, Social Worker, R/o. 668886976890 PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001. 2. The National Highway Authority of India Rep. by its Regional Officer, D.No. 41-29-45A, RS No. 373/2A, Ranigari Thota, Krishnalnaka, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520013. 3. The Project Director, Ministry of Transport Implementation Unit for NH 216, D.No. and Highways Project 15-551-9, Sri Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Bypass Road, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh-521001. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Water 4, Secretariate, Velagapudi, Resources, Department, Block No. Amaravati, Guntur District. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Godavari District- 533125. 6. The River Conservator Dowlaiswaram, East cum Executive Engineer, Godavari Head Works Division, Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District-533125. 7. The Executive Engineer cum Estate Officer, Public Works Department Yanam- 533464. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.6 in not initiating action against the prohibited activity of construction within the water spread area of Gowthami River and the orders dated 30- 10-2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21, 41-A and 51- A(g) of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to take steps for removal of structures within the water spread area of Gowthami River or in alternative arrange sufficient vent ways to the approach road. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 6 to consider the representation dated 28.11.2024 made by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No’s, to 3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 4 to 7: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010119842025 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 50 of 2025 ...Petitioner Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad Vs. ...Respondents Union of India and others ********** Mr. V V Satish Advocate for Petitioner GP for Irrigation and Command Area Development for R.4 to R.7 Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 12^^ March, 2025 PC : The petitioner is aggrieved of the construction of a bund which falls in the Yanam area which is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. This is also the view expressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Project Implementation Unit, Machilipatnam, who after considering the representation of the petitioner has taken a stand that the bund was not constructed by the National Highway 2. 2 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_50_2025 r Authority but by the Public Works Department of Yanam as per the specifications prescribed by them. In our opinion, the petitioner may have to approach the 3. appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance. This Court has no jurisdiction. 4. Be that as it may, the WP(PIL) is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. OneCCto SRI. VV SATISH, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies PRK /• HIGH COURT DATED: 12/03/2025 ORDER ^ 0 ^ APR 2025 WP(PIL).No.50 of 2025 Currem Seciior. ^ DISMISSING THE W.P(PIL), WITHOUT COSTS