1 APHC010384862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19733/2024 Between: Javvadi Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: 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 inaction of the Respondents 2 to 7 for not taking any action on petitioner’s complaint dated 18.06.2024 with a request to take necessary action against the Respondent No.8 for his unauthorised construction encroaching upon the Public Road, Road Margin and obstructing ingress and aggress to the petitioner’s House, without obtaining any permission, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the Official respondents 5 and 6 to demolish the unauthorised construction made by the 8th Respondent encroaching the Public Road, Road Margin, Ingress and aggress to petitioner’s House….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6 and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.4 and 7. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the Writ Petition, but, however limited his request to direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the complaint made by the petitioner dated 18.06.2024, requesting the 6th respondent to take necessary action against the unauthorized construction made by respondent No.8. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for official respondents submits that the respondent authorities will consider the complaint made by 3 the petitioner, dated 18.06.2024 and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent No.6 to consider the complaint made by the petitioner dated 18.06.2024 after duly giving notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 herein, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.01.2025 KGR