IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31555 OF 2024 Between: Puvvada Surya Sriram Sagar, S/o Jagannadham, aged about 28 years, R/o D.No.7-3-1, Maddugari Street, Ward No.7, Kothapet, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Vizianagaram. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. The Station House Officer, 1-Town Police Station, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of more the respondent authorities 2,4 and 5 in not taking any action on the petitioners representations dated 20.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 in regard to the blocking the petitioners house on the eastern south of the petitioners plot no.8 which is a public road, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and abuse of power conferred upon them and. to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to block the ingress and egress to the petitioners plot no.8 which is sold by the Municipal Corporation vide document no. 7254 of 2004 to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities 2, 4 & 5 to take action forthwith by allowing the petitioner to use the ingress and aggress of the road to his plot no.8 without any obstruction as per the sale deed document no. 7254 of 2004 dated 30.10.2004, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP MUNICIPAL ADMIN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI M KRISHNA RAO SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Counsel for the Respondent No. 4&5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010600502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31555/2024 [3333] 0MS ^7 Between; ...PETITIONER Puvvada Surya Sriram Sagar AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATl Counsel for the Respondent(S); Krishna Rao SC for ski vzm kkd Municipal Corporations 1.M 2.GP FOR HOME 3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following; ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities 2, 4 and 5 in not taking any action on the petitioner’s representations dated 20.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 in regard to the blocking the petitioners house on the eastern south of the petitioners plot no. 8 which is a public road, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and abuse of power conferred upon them and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to block the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s plot no. 8 which is sold by the Municipal Corporation vide document no. 7254 of 2004 to the petitioner... ” 2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 172.03 sq. yards having purchased the same in a public auction held by the Municipal Corporation vide registered document No.7254 of 2004 and thereafter has also constructed the building by obtaining building approval from the concerned authorities. The case of the petitioner is that on the south-east of the road there is a municipal shopping complex and Shop No.149, which is on the ground floor, which has been taken on lease by one Matcha Srinivasa Rao, who has demolished the wall abetting to the road and established a pial on the road tried to encroach into public road. As such, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Municipal Corporation complaining that the said Srinivasa Rao has broke down the wall of the municipal building without obtaining any prior permission from the competent authorities. In pursuance of which, the Municipal Corporation has dismantled the pial laid down on the road, which is leading to the petitioner’s property and so far as the shutter that has been kept open by demolishing the wall of the municipal building has been seized. While the the said shop lease holder started harassing the petitioner by matter being so blocking ingress and egress of the petitioner’s property by putting heavy vehicles and causing difficulty to the petitioner to have ingress and egress to his plot No.8. As such, the petitioner gave a complaint to respondent No.2 on 20.11.2024 through PGRS requesting for removal of the vehicles objecting ingress and egress to the petitioner to his plot No.8. has been initiated, the petitioner also filed a complaint before the Police on 24.11.2024 and on 27.11.2024. But however, the Police have failed to respond stating that it is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the said Srinivasa Rao. As no action has been initiated by the 2 respondent on the complaint raised by the petitioner on present writ petition is filed. 3. As no action nd 20.11.2024, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Mr.M.Krishna Rao 4. No.2, on instructions, has informed this Court that they have already the earlier complaint made by the petitioner by seizing the responded to shutter but however with regard to the subsequent complaint, it is for the Police authorities to initiate action for removal of the vehicles. learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that , it is for the 5. The under Section 379(1 )(a) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 ^ for short "Act »9- Commissioner to initiate action on the petitioner’s complaint. For better appreciation, Section 379(1 )(a) of the Act, is referred below:- 379.(1) It shall be lawful for the Commissioner with the sanction of the Corporation to - (a) prohibit vehicular traffic in any particular public streets, vesting in the Corporation to prevent danger, obstruction inconvenience to the pubiic by fixing up posts at both ends of such street or portion of such street. so as or 6. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is also that the neighbouring shop lease holders have closed ingress and egress of the petitioner entry to his plot No.8. As the Commissioner is the competent authority to initiate action as under Section 379(1 )(a) of the Act, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2 respondent to take appropriate action on the complaint made by the petitioner on 20.11.2024 in accordance with Section 379(1 )(a) of the Act. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. nd 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registrar SEdri^N^FFICER / I //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram. 3. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 4. The Superintendentof Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 5. The Station House Officer, 1-Town Police Station, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. 6. One CC to Sri. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. M Krishna Rao SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 10. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31555of 2024 % 2 3 JAN 2C25 ^ Current Section Co, DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS