Abothula Srinu, S/o Appalanaidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/15064/2015 · 2025-01-02
V Sujatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36980 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36980 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010615592015
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: 15064/2015 Between: Abothula Srinu, S/o Appalanaidu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P HEMACHANDRA
2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities
3.
4. J DILEEP KUMAR 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 a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd and 3rd respondents in allowing the 4th respondent to install 4G network cell tower in Plot No.112, Sainagar, Phoolbagh, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District without necessary permissions and without considering the objections of petitioners in representation dt.17.05.2015 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of constitution of India and be pleased to pass…”
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, N.Manikanta, leaned counsel representing Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 on oral instructions has informed this Court that the respondents have not installed any 4G network cell tower in Plot No.112, Sainagar, Phoolbagh, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District and for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has also conceded the same and requested to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous.
3. By recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, this 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: 02.01.2025 SRT
238 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
W.P.No.15064 of 2015 Date: 02.01.2025
SRT