K. SATYAVANI v. Municipal Corporation of Rajamahendravaram ,as
WP/26438/2018 · 2025-07-08
Nyapathy Vijay
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35265 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35265 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010558262018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26438/2018 Between: K. Satyavani and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Municipal Corporation Of Rajamahendravaram As ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26438/2018 ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“to declare the action of the respondent in issuing the integrated demand bill for 2018-2019 with demand bill No.I/106400196505 dt.13.04.2018 in respect of premises No.55- 08/3-22 in Ward No.32, Block-55 situated at Subramanya Nagar, Rajahmundry and the consequential action of the respondent in disconnecting the water supply to the premises for non-payment of the alleged property-tax as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles-14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential order setting aside the same and further direct the respondent to compute the assessment for the subject premises as payable for a residential premises w.e.f. 2011-2012 and issue a fresh demand notice duly giving credit to the amounts already paid by the Petitioner till date and also direct the Respondent to reconnect the water supply to premises No.55-08/3-22 in Ward No.32, Block-55 situated at Subramanya Nagar, Rajahmundry”.
2. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is stated that the Petitioner No.1 had paid the due amount to the Respondent and therefore, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication.
3
3. In view of the categorical statement in the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. Date: 09-07-2025 eha
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WP No. 26438 of 2018
Dt.09-07-2025
eha
U