1 APHC010594602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 971/2025 Between: Appikatla Sri Hari Naidu ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking action on the petitioner Spandana representation dated 3.7.2023 vide GNT202307031170 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Andhra Pradesh Municipality Corporation Act, 1994 and Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No.4 and 5 to remove the encroachments made on drainage canal which is on main road situated at Kaza-1, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District…...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. The petitioner is the owner of the house situated at D.No.7-92, Kaza-1, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. The grievance of the petitioner is that in front of his house there is a road and at the corner of the road there is a drainage canal, and some third parties have encroached the drainage canal and road by constructing houses without obtaining permission of the Tadepalli Municipality Corporation. As such, the petitioner made a representation through Spandana portal on 03.07.2023 vide GNT202307031170 to the 2nd respondent and requested for taking steps to remove the unauthorized constructions and encroachments made on the drainage canal. As no action has been initiated on the said representation, the present writ petition is filed. 3 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No.4 and 5, furnished a copy of instructions of the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that in response to the Spandana grievance, the staff of the 4th respondent visited the subject location and found that there were certain encroachments on drains, specifically ramps and pials. On 12.03.2023, the staff of the 4th respondent removed the said encroachments on the drain to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Accordingly, an endorsement was also issued on 12.07.2023 and an acknowledgment was also obtained from the petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that in response to the application submitted by the petitioner in Spandana programme, the staff of respondent No.4 visited the subject location and having identified the encroachment, removed the same to the satisfaction of the petitioner and the same was also communicated to the petitioner by way of an endorsement dated 12.03.2023, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 20.01.2025 KGR