1 APHC010008462014 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: 35549/2014 Between: K. Sreekanth, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KATA SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JANARDHANA RAO KATTA 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 5. P NARAHARI BABU 6. N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “… to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to sanction building permission in respect of the property in T.S.No.614 and 615 of D.No.7-7-48 situated at Hindupur Town, Anantapuram District and also the 3rd respondent entertaining the the documents from respondents 4 and 5 for registratiorf though the respondents 4 and 5 are only tenants of the above premises is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to sanction any building permission to raise any kind of structures and also direct the 3rd respondent not to entertain any documents for registration in respect of the above schedule property from the respondents 4 and 5…” 2. Today when the matter came up forhearing, Ms.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel, has furnished a copy of instructions of respondent No.2 dated 02.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the office has not issued any building permission to the property situated in T.S.No.614 & 615 of D.No.7-7-48, Hindupur, in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and it is further submitted that the office has also not transferred the property tax assessment number in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as alleged by the petitioner. 3. Recording the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives in the writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. 3 Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 03.01.2025 JLV