APHC010734752015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Eighth Day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Nos: 38473, 7340 of 2015 and C.C.No.32 of 2016 Writ Petition No: 38473 of 2015 Between: Jagu Satyanarayana @ Vankayala Sattibabu ...Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for the respondents: 1. Chintapalli Srinivas 2. G.N.Uma Rani (Standing Counsel for A.M.C.) 3. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) Writ Petition No: 7340 of 2015 Between: Jagu Satyanarayana @ Vankayala Sattibabu ...Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents 2 W.P.No.38473 of 2015 & batch Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for the respondents: 1. Chintapalli Srinivas 2. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 3. B.Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A.M.C.) Contempt Case No: 32 of 2016 Between: Jagu Satyanarayana @ Vankayala Sattibabu ...Petitioner and Sri N.R.G. Chowdary ...Contemnor Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for the contemnor: Nil 3 W.P.No.38473 of 2015 & batch The Court made the following common ORDER: Writ Petition No.38473 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authority in demolishing the petitioner's thatched shed erected in plot No.8 in an extent of 47X97 Sq. feet situated in Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District without issuing any notice and without cancellation of the petitioner's licence and interfering with the petitioner's business activity during subsistence of the licence is arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and direct the 2nd respondent authority to pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner towards the illegal demolition of the thatched shed and return the petitioner's articles i.e., 28 Plastic Sheets, 16 Chairs, one long table, 6 account books and electricity meter and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent authority not to interfere with the petitioner's business in plot No.8 of the Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and to pass...” 2. Writ Petition No.7340 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in demolishing the petitioner's ACC roof shed erected in Plot No.8 in an extent of 46X97 Sq. feet situated in Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District without issuing any notice and without cancellation of the 4 W.P.No.38473 of 2015 & batch petitioner's licence is arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and the same is without any justice and to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) to the petitioner for the illegal demolition of the ACC roof shed and for its re-construction in an extent of 47X97 Sq. feet at Plot No.8 of Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to interfere with the petitioner's mango business in plot No.8 of Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry and to pass.” 3. C.C.No.32 of 2016 is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to call for the contemnor / respondent herein and punish him under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willfully disobeying and deliberately violating the orders of this Court passed in W.P.M.P.No.49531 of 2015 in W.P.No.38473 of 2015, dated 26.11.2015. 4. Sri G.Venkata Sailendra, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject shop Nos.21 to 26 were allotted to the petitioner on contract basis after issuing a fresh tender. He further submitted that in case, if the respondents need the subject shops, they have to follow due process of law by issuing prior notice. 5. Ms. G.N. Uma Rani, learned Standing Counsel for A.M.C. placed on record a copy of the written instructions of Secretary (FAC), Agricultural Marketing Committee, Rajamahendravaram, vide R.O.C.No.129/A/2015, dated 03.12.2025, and submitted that the shop Nos.21 to 26 were allotted to the petitioner and requested to close the petitions. 5 W.P.No.38473 of 2015 & batch 6. In view of the submissions on both sides, the writ petitions and the contempt case are closed with a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law, if the subject shops are required to be vacated or demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.08.12.2025 NSM 6 W.P.No.38473 of 2015 & batch 103 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Nos: 38473, 7340 of 2015 and C.C.No.32 of 2016 Dt.08.12.2025 NSM