Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36793 (AP)

Degala Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal

WP/27981/2014 · 2025-01-02

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010603482014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27981/2014 Between: Degala Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs particularly in the nature of “WRIT OF MANDAMUS” and declare the in action of official respondents in not taking action against the 6th respondent for establishment and running of illegal sawmill and chitri machine in the premises D.No.15-16-6/1, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, without obtaining permission from the 3rd respondent U/s.264 of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19(i)(g) & Article 21 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions U/s. 264, 266 of A.P.Municipalities Act 1965 and consequently direct the respondents not to permit the 6th respondent to run the workshop of saw mill and chitri machine in the above premises and pass…” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared through online and informed this Court that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and that the matter has become infructuous. 3. By recording the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.05.2024 SRT 229 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.27981 of 2014 Date: 02.01.2025 SRT