K.Akshitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary
WP/38741/2014 · 2025-01-08
V Sujatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13132 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13132 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010155962014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38741/2014 Between: K.akshitha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities
3. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO
4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
5. J N BHUSHAN The Court made the following:
ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in granting permission to the 4th respondent company for installation of Roof Top Tower (RTT) and Telecom equipments for broad band services in the premises belonging to the 5th respondent bearing D.No.35-3-80/B6, Devudu Cheruvu, Zakraiah Hospital Centre, Ongole, in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner and the locality people, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the provisional permission granted by the 2nd respondent in Procs.Roc.No.1225/2014/G2 dt.25.7.2014 by directing the respondent authorities not allow installation of the Roof Top Tower on the terrace of the premises of the 5th respondent and pass…”
2. Heard Sri Kaushik Kumbhajadala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondent Nos.1, Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.3,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the material available on record.
3. During hearing, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondents and as well as learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.3341 of 2019, dated 24.08.2020, wherein this Court passed a detailed
Order by allowing the writ petition. Operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned TERM Cell of DoT by way
of a fresh representation for redressal of their grievance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioners approaching the said Cell, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said authority/Cell in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 3 to 5 also and communicate the decision to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.”
4. In view of the same, as the issue involved in the present writ petition is similar to W.P.No.3341 of 2019, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in similar lines.
5. In the result, the Writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned TERM Cell of DoT by way of a fresh representation for redressal of their grievance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioners approaching the said Cell, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said authority/Cell in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 4 & 5 also and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :08.01.2025 SRT
394 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
W.P.No.38741 of 2014 Date: 08.01.2025
SRT