APHC010388572016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27043/2016 Between: Ch. Naresh Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not demolishing the building constructed without any permission from the Grater Visakha Municipal Corporation by the 3rd respondent at D/No.58-11-16, 58-11-31 & 58-11-32 in Sy.No.120, Marripalam, Kasara Village, Visakhapatnam with assessment No.72557 & 73123 as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to rules and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to demolish the building constructed without any permission from the Grater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by the 3rd respondent at D/No.58-11-16, 58-11-31 & 58-11-32 in Sy.No.120, Marripalam, Kasara Village, Visakhapatnam with assessment No 72557 & 73123 and pass…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has furnished a copy of instructions dated 07.01.2025 issued by the Assistant City Planner, Zone-5, GVMC, Visakhapatnam, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.3 had submitted a plan to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the construction of a ground floor, first floor and second floor at B.A.No.10486/13/ACP-IV/G2, dated 04.02.2013, to an extent of 165.58 sq.meters. Thereafter, during the process of verification, the said plan was kept on abeyance due to the shortfall with certain reasons which are not fulfilled by the respondent No.3 in time. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 had once again applied through APDPMS Online Portal regarding the construction of S+G+2 vide B.A.No.1086/0511/B/Z4/KSA/2019, dated 01.04.2019, in pursuance of which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have granted permission to the respondent No.3. 3. On a perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing, it can be seen that, though initially the plan submitted by the respondent No.3 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for construction of ground floor, first floor and second floor vide B.A.No.10486/13/ACP-IV/G2, dated 04.02.2013, to an extent of 165.58 sq.meters, was kept on abeyance due to short fall for certain reasons which are not fulfilled in time by the respondent No.3 and thereafter, when the respondent No.3 once again applied for the aforesaid constructions through APDPMS Online Portal vide B.A.No.1086/0511/B/Z4/KSA/2019, dated 01.04.2019, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had granted the permission for the said construction. In view of the fact that the respondent No.3 had constructed the subject building after obtaining permission from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.01.2025 SRT 323 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.27043 of 2016 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT