APHC010233192019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10588 OF 2019 Between: Bandaru Pallam Raju, S/o Chalamayya, agea bout 53 years, Occ. Petty vendor, R/o Thatipaka Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department,Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Thatipaka Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Thatipaka, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. Palika Srinivasa Babu, S/o not known to the petitioner, age major, Occ. Secretary, Thatipaka Gram Panchayat, R/o Thatipaka Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District 4. Sirigineedi Anand, S/o Vaddi Kasulu, age major, R/o Thatipaka Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the respondent No.3 in closing the north side of the wall of petitioner's shop No.1, t' /*iti 4he premises of Gram Panchayat shopping complex, Thatipaka village, fflazoletMandal, East Godavari District, in collusion with respondent No.4, by vjol^tng proceedings dated 10-10-2018, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 44 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to open the north side wall of petitioner's shop No.1 and keep it idle, in order to enable the petitioner to run his business successfully. * lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent forthwith to open the north side wall of petitioner's shop No.1, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: MSVS SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order: -I • • 1 • • • • J. • • APHC010233192019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10588/2019 m [3329] Between: 1.BANDARU PALLAM RAJU, S/0 CHALAMAYYA, AGFA YEARS, OCC. PETTY VENDOR, R/0 RAZOLE BOUT 53 THATIPAKA VILLAGE, GODAVARI DISTRICT. MANDAL, EAST ...PETITIONER AND I.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2.THE THATIPAKA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THATIPAKA, RAZOLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.PALIKA SRINIVASA BABU, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE MAJOR, OCC. SECRETARY, THATIPAKA GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O THATIPAKA VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4.SIRIGINEEDI ANAND, S/0 VADDI KASULU, AGE MAJOR, R/O THATIPAKA VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BUILDINGS ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is 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, declaring the high handed action of the respondent No. 3 in closing the north side of the wall of petitioner's shop No.1, in the premises of Gram Panchayat shopping complex, Thatipaka village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, in collusion with respondent No. 4, by violating proceedings dated 11-10-2018, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to open the north side wall of petitioner's shop No. 1 and keep it idle, in order to enable the petitioner to run his business successfully and pass 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the Grampanchayat appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running his business in the name and style of Vaishnavi Travels, which is a ticket booking counter of APSRTC. The said shop, i.e., Shop No.1 is situated in the premises of the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat’s shopping complex, at Daily Market, Thatipaka Village, -■»k 3 Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner is the lessee of Shop No.1 in the said premises of the 2^^ respondent Gram Panchayat, and the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner has been extended from time to time. Pursuant to the lease, the petitioner has been continuing his business at Shop No.1. While so, the petitioner submitted an application/representation to the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat for removal of the northern side wall, which was causing inconvenience to his day to day business at Shop No.1. Pursuant to the said representation, the 2'"'' respondent Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 15.10.2018, permitting the petitioner to remove the northern side wall of his shop (Shop No.1}. After such removal, and pursuant to the complaints of the leaseholders of the said complex with the 2'"'^ respondent Gram Panchayat, the 3^'’ respondent herein lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 14.07.2019 for unauthorized demolition of public property under Section 3 of the Public Property Act, 1984, and a case was registered as Crime No.169 of 2019. In view of the said complaint, having no other option, the petitioner got reconstructed the demolished wall and restored Shop No.1 to its earlier condition (status quo ante). As a result of the reconstruction, the petitioner was compelled to incur expenditure, even though the permission 4 respondent Gram Panchayat 15.10.2018, but acted contrary to the nd had already been granted by the 2 by way of resolution dated resolution. counsel for the petitioner further submits that granted permission by way of the said respondent Gram the entry on the wall which was already The learned 4. since the petitioner was dated 15.10.2018 by the 2 nd resolution Panchayat, he should be permitted to open side by removing the for the development and benefit of his business. northern reconstructed. Hence, the present writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 the petitioner has reconstructed the removed pursuant to the resolution 5. and 4 submits that since northern side wall, which was passed by the 2^^^ respondent Gram Panchayat, to the respondents/other closure of the northern side entry of the dated 15.10.2018 no inconvenience now there is leaseholders due to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner towards the northern side objections from the other shop intends to have another entry the Gram Panchayat shall obtain holders/lessees, as the opening of 5 entries towards the northern side of Shop No.1 of the petitioner may cause inconvenience to them or not. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that, even though permission was granted in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat by way of a resolution dated 15.10.2018, but for one reason or the other, the subsequent elected body of the Gram Panchayat acted against the said resolution and did not allow to complete it, due to which the petitioner again closed the northern side wall of Shop No.1 as instructed by the Gram Panchayat. In view of the closure of the northern side entry of Shop No.1 of the petitioner as admitted, the petitioner is now carrying on his business as per the terms of the lease granted by the 2""* respondent Gram Panchayat. However, if the petitioner still intends to have an entry on the northern side wall, he shall file a fresh application before the 2""* respondent Gram Panchayat within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such fresh application, the 2^"^ respondent Gram Panchayat shall consider the and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after 6. same 6 providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any, including the unofficial respondents herein, within a period of three (03) months thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. SECTION OPPJCER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department,Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Secretary, Thatipaka Gram Panchayat, Thatipaka, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri. MSVS Sudha Rani Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. N Srihari (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI. G Simhadri Advocate [OPUC] ^Two CCs to GP For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. AL r TL HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 10588 OF 2019 I 05 SEP 2025 . Current Section . mr DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS