Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40714 (AP)

A. Naga Suresh, v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/31788/2025 · 2025-11-13

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010616992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31788/2025 Between: 1. A. NAGA SURESH,, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.3-263, KUNCHANAPALLI, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order questioning the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 in trying to demolish the petitioner shop situated at Sy.No.115 of Kunchanapalli, Opposite to YSR Statue in Kunchanapalli Prathur Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District without following the procedure and without issuing any notice is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner business situated at Sy.No.115 of Kunchanapalli, Opposite to YSR Statue in Kunchanapalli Prathur Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner’s shop situated at Sy.No.115 of Kunchanapalli, Opposite to YSR Statue in Kunchanapalli Prathur Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Sri.A.S.C.Bose learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31788 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 and 3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the stall allotted to him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 13.03.2023 allotting one stall to the petitioner and since then the petitioner is doing petty business in the said stall. The petitioner was also charged the appropriate development charges, service line charges and security deposit by the Power Distribution Company. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice has been deploying the JCB for demolishing the stall of the petitioner. 3. Sri.A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 on written instructions submits that though the petitioner was granted a stall admeasuring 10’-0” x12’-0”, the petitioner has been encroaching on the road margin. As such, they have removed the encroached portion only and it is not affecting the stall of the petitioner for running his business. It is also submitted that if any further action would be in accordance with law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Perused the material on record. 5. Considering the submissions, the present writ petition is disposed off at the admission stage and it is made clear to the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from his stall without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Issue CC by 17.11.2025 B/o.KGM 46 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31788 of 2025 Dated 14.11.2025 CC by 17.11.2025 KGM