APHC010641932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38307/2022 Between: Peravala Venkata Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 27.06.2022, vide Spandana Petition ID No.KRI/SPKRI/270622/01283, against the 5th respondents, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the subsistence of the lease of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had executed a lease in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner lease was extended on 01.01.2021 and is subsisting till 30.12.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner permitted the 5th respondent to utilize a portion of his shop for running his travel agency. While so, the 3rd respondent, without cancelling the lease subsisting in favour of the petitioner, had executed another lease in favour of the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed a complaint on 27.06.2022, however, no action has been taken by the authorities so far. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the respondents have verified the factual possession of the shop, have enquired with the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and recorded their statements. The said exercise was undertaken after receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, and the 3rd respondent had executed the lease deed in favour of the 5th respondent. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent that the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the petitioner to intimate about the termination of his lease, however, the petitioner did not choose to receive the same. Consequently, the shop was allotted to the 5th respondent, and a fresh lease agreement was entered into with him. 4. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition, as such, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievance before the appropriate forum, if so advised. No costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________ HARINATH.N,J Date: 17.03.2025 ANS 192 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38307/2022 Date: 17.03.2025 ANS