Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31566 (AP)

M/s.Sri Raja Ranga Rao and Samineni Udaya Bhanu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary

WP/35382/2014 · 2025-06-23

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010461822014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: Between: M/s.Sri Raja Ranga Rao And Samineni Udaya Bhanu The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35382 OF 2014 ri Raja Ranga Rao And Samineni Udaya Bhanu AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35382 OF 2014 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing a Notice dated 05.08.2014 demanding three months advance and also for the production of Insolvency Certificate to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for every year in respect of the petitioner association shop Nos. 1 to 32 situated at S.U.B.Shopping Complex at Jaggaiahpet Mandal and Municipality, Krishna District, without considering the representation dated 24.10.2014 and for going to public auction by cancelling the lease as illegal and arbitrary. 2. This Court on 20.11.2014 did not pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/ Municipality would submit that in view of passage of time, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive, in view of subsequently developments. It is further submitted that any action taken by the Respondent/ Municipality, the same will be followed as per G.O.Ms.No. 56 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department, dated 05.02.2011 i.e A.P.Municipality (Receipt and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. 4. While recording the above said submission, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.06.2025 KK