1 APHC010310242014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38722/2014 Between: A.srinivasulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 4. MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the 2nd respondent in granting permission to the 4th respondent company for installation of Roop Top Tower (RTT) and Telecom equipments for broad band services in the premises belonging to the 5th respondent bearing D.No.7-2-128, Club Road, Gopal Nagar, Kandukur Prakasam District, inspite of the objections raised by the petitioners and the locality people followed by written representations, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the provisional permission granted by the 2nd respondent in Procs Roc No 583/2014/G1 dt 16.9.2014…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel, has furnished a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 28.12.2024, wherein it is stated that after verification of the site and documents submitted by the 4th respondent, the Municipality has issued provisional permission vide proceedings dated 16.09.2014 for erecting the RTT at the 5th respondent building. But however, basing on the objections made by the petitioners and other surrounding people by submitting representations requesting to stop the installation of the said tower on the said proposed building, the 4th respondent himself have not continued the installation of the RTT at the proposed building and they have withdrawn the installation works and it is further stated that as of now, no RTT tower is 3 installed at the proposed site by the 4th respondent and it is completely stopped. 3. Recording the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that no cause survives. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 03.01.2025 JLV