APHC010128362013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28899/2013 Between: Chennaredi Venkata Satya Tulasi Naga Bhushananm Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY 2. P N MURTHY 3. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not initiating further proceedings pursuant to the notices issued under Secs 228(1) to (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 in respect of building constructed in D.No.9-9-19(1)(2), since R3 and R4 constructed building without obtaining permission, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 is illegal, arbitrary violative of provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to initiate further proceedings in respect of the building of the R3 and R4 in D.No.9- 9-19(1)(2) Savutirpet, Tadepalligudem in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Rules made thereunder…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality as furnished a copy of instructions dated 02.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent had detected the unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos.3 & 4 and initiated action by issuing notices to them. Further, as the respondent Nos.3 & 4 had not stopped the said unauthorized constructions, further action had been initiated by the 2nd respondent by filing the charge sheet before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tadepalligudem against respondent Nos.3 & 4 vide charge sheet PR No.38/2011, dt.15.10.2011 and PR No.40/2011, dt.28.10.2011. 4. In view of the instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel representing the Municipality, as the action has already been initiated by the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 19.02.2025 JLV 487 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.28899 of 2013 Dt.19.02.2025 JLV