1 APHC010196132020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12680/2020 Between: 1. MUCHHU ADAIAH, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, AGE. 52, R/O. THIMMAPALEM VILLAGE, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR. 2. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE THIMMAPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the 2 High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus holding and declaring the action of the respondents in locking RO Water plant( NTR Sujala Sravanthi Scheme) situated in Thimmapalem Gram Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, in spite of existence of the period accorded in favour of the petitioner to run and supply water by the 3rd Respondent without issuance of any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Consequently be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to forth with unlock and hand over the RO Water plant unit ( NTR Sujala Sravanthi Scheme) situated in Thimmapalem Gram Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.12680 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending writ petition the claim of the petitioner was become infructuous and cause in the writ petition does not survive and no further orders are required to pass for further adjudication and hence, the writ petition becomes infructuous. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 18.09.2025 krk 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.12680 of 2020 DT: 18.09.2025 krk 48