M. Venkata Satya Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/8329/2015 · 2025-01-23
V Sujatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21667 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21667 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010306882015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8329/2015 Between: M. Venkata Satya Rama Rao ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA)
2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Notice/Endorsement Rc.B.A.No.11349/2014/ACPI dated .03.2015 signed on 20.02.2015 served on 12.03.2015 to petitioner’s relative taking the signature as if the same was served on 22.02.2015 by threatening of demolition of structure as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the same with a consequential directions to the Respondents not to interfere with construction activities of the Petitioner undertaken at Plot No.101A (odd bit-HIG) situated at Midhilapuri Colony, Madhurawada Layout, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in pursuance of approved Building Plan in B.A.No. 11349/2014/ACPI dated 24.07.2014 and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and properin the circumstances of the case”
2. When the matter came up for hearing, it is represented on behalf of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.
3. Recording the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date:23.01.2025 ANS
292
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 8329/2015
Date: 23.01.2025 ANS