APHC010426292016 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: 32157/2016 Between: Ch. Ganesh, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARRI SURYANARAYANA 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not granting permission for construction of the petitioner house bearing No.58-11-16 & 31 in Sy.No.120 at Karasa of Marripalem village in Ward No.42, GVMC, Visakhapatnam after receipt of balance fees of an amount of Rs.38,383/- from the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against violative Articles 14, 19 & 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for construction of ground first and second floor in the interest of justice and to 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, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has submitted a plan for the ground floor, first floor and second floor vide B.A.No.10486/13/ACP-IV/G2, dated 04.02.2013, with a site area to an extent of 165.58 sq.meters and the file is kept under shortfall vide Endorsement dated 08.02.2013, for paying the balance fee of Rs.38,383/- by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had paid Rs.38,383/- through demand draft No.571305 on 20.04.2016 to the Commission of GVMC, Visakhapatnam, after completion of the notice period and as such, the petitioner’s appeal was not considered and no permission was granted to him for construction. Thereafter, when the petitioner had once again applied building permission for construction of S+G+2 building through APDPMS Portal vide B.A.No.1086/0511/B/Z4/KSA/2019, dated 01.04.2019, the official respondent had granted permission to the petitioner and basing on which the petitioner had also completed the construction. 3. Recording the said instructions, 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 325 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.32157 of 2016 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT