1 APHC010535932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27949/2024 Between: Summit 696 Flat Allottees Association ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKHIL KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 2nd respondent in considering and disposing of the complaint made by the petitioner against the 3rd and 4th respondents vide C.P.No.18/2024 dated 30/08/2024 as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention to Sec 29 (4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, as well as violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider enquire and dispose the petitioners complaint within a stipulated period as this court deems fit in the interest of Justice equity and good conscience as well as the facts of the present case…” 2. Heard Sri K.Akhil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Indraneel Babu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 11.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3707 of 2022 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-A.P.RERA, Vijayawada, to dispose of 3 the said applications bearing C.P.Nos.12 of 2021, 4 of 2021, 18 of 2021, 7 of 2021, 13 of 2021, 11 of 2021 and 10 of 2021 filed by the petitioners expeditiously within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order or from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the said authority, whichever is earlier. Pending applications, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.” 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3707 of 2022. 5. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent-A.P.RERA, Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of the said complaint bearing C.P.No.18 of 2024, dated 30.08.2024, filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 6. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 11.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3707 of 2022 to this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.08.01.2025 JLV