APHC010144232014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34063/2014 Between: Perumalla Gurunadham The State Of Ap Municipal Admn Another and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R AVULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34063/2014 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Municipal Admn Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ A) To declare the inaction of the 1st respondent in not issuing necessary orders to the 2nd respondent pursuant to the request made by vide Rc.No.A3/3463/2004 dated 27.8.2010 as illegal void and arbitrary and thereby violaitng Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India B) To direct the 1st respondent to accord necessary permission to the 2nd respondent for taking action for regularization of plot bearing No EWS41 situated in Sy.No.32 part Payakapuram, Vijayawada Krishna District in favour of the petitioner C) Consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to regularize the plot bearing No EWS41 situated in Sy No 32 part Payakapuram Vijayawada Krishna District in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Sri A.S.C Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.40405 of 2012 and 3 requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “…..In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision in the matter and thereafter the 2nd respondent is to act in accordance with the same. However, in case any decision is taken against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stands closed. .” 4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 07.07.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.40405 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.40405 of 2012 to this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:14.02.2025 KKV 4 101 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34063/2014 Date:14.02.2025 KKV