Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13635 (AP)

CITY MEDICAL v. STATE OF AP

WP/7178/2018 · 2025-04-09

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010164372018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 7178/2018 Between: City Medical ...PETITIONER AND State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI ( SC FOR VMC AP ) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing endorsement Dt. 26.02.2018 to submit rental agreement deed, property tax receipt, approved plan copy and parking provision as per the plan of the premises to issue trade license in favour of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declaring the action of the respondents will not granting trade license to the petitioner for not submitting the requirements as stated in the Endorsement Dt. 26.02.2018 as illegal, arbitrary (iii) and further declare the notice dated- 26.02.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent to shut down the business of the petitioner within three days as illegal and arbitrary (iv) and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue trade license in favour of the petitioner without insisting the documents mentioned in the Endorsement Dt. 26.02.2018 viz., rental agreement deed, property tax receipt, approved plan copy and parking provision as per the plan for running the business and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of his best efforts to reach out the petitioner, there is no response. 3. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.04.2025 KBN 3 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 7178/2018 Date: 09.04.2025 KBN