APHC010316272013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20194/2013 Between: 1. G. RAJA SEKHAR, E.G. DIST, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO.16-23-60/A, PALLAMRAJU NAGAR, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. DIRECTOR OF TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINDA. 4. THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA REVENUE DIVISION, SITUATED AT KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, AT VISHAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. BODDU SATYANARAYANA, S/O. BAIRAVA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO. 16-23-37, MILITARY ROAD, SAMBAMURTHY NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT MP MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.3 to 5 in issuing proceedings vide C. No. 6082/G1/2012 dated 15.10.2012, Roc. No. 2660/2012/G3 dated 14.06.2013 and D Dis. G/2948/2012 dated 18.09.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and without following Bye Law No. 32 of Municipal Corporation Manual and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein not to accord any sanction in favour of the Respondent No. 6 and 7 for establishment of a Retail Outlet for storage of Petroleum Class A 136B and Petrol Bunk at T.S. No. 1996/1, Door No. 16-23-37, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 24762 OF 2013 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 direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein not to accord any sanction in favour of the Respondent No. 6 and 7 for establishment of a Retail Outlet for storage of Petroleum Class A & B and Petrol Bunk at T.S. No. 1996/1, Door No. 16-23-37, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2013(WPMP 116840 OF 2013 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 IA NO: 6 OF 2013(WPMP 120594 OF 2013 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WVMP 4069 OF 2015 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 vacate the order 24.07.2013 passed in W.P.M.P.No.24762 of 2013 in W.P.No.20194 of 2013 and further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the W.P.No.20194 of 2013 IA NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP 137980 OF 2015 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 5. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO 6. PUTREVU PRABHAKAR 7. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI 8. The Court made the following ORDER: Sri K. Tarun Ganesh Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri A.K. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 20.08.2025 KAS