Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46429 (AP)

Kasu Somireddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/26715/2025 · 2025-09-23

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010520102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26715/2025 Between: 1. KASU SOMIREDDY, S/O LATE RAJU BABU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RUNNING SRI SAMPATH VINAYA SUGAR CARE JUICE SHOP DOOR NO SECTOR-5, MVP COLONY, NEARTTD KALAYANA MANDAPAM, PEDA WALTAIR VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. POTHINA SATTIBABU,, S/O APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. RUNNING SRI VENKATEWARA COCONUT JUICE SHOP. DOOR NO SECTOR-5, MVP COLONY, NEARTTD KALAYANA MANDAPAM, PEDA WALTAIR VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONE - 3, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and their staff in interfering the possession of the petitioners and taking steps to demolish the shops of the petitioners situate at Door No. Sector-5 MVP Colony, near TTD Kalayana Mandapam, Peda Waltair Village, Seethammadhara Mandal, Viskahapatnam District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 3 and 4 and their staff not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioners shops situate at Door No. Sector-5 MVP Colony, near TTD Kalayana Mandapam, Peda Waltair Village, Seethammadhara Mandal, Viskahapatnam District or demolish the same without following due process of law 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 pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 and their staff not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioners’ shops situate at Door No. Sector-5 MVP Colony, near TTD Kalayana Mandapam, Peda Waltair Village, Seethammadhara Mandal, Viskahapatnam District, in any manner including dispossession, trespass, demolition without following due procedure Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26715 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents in trying to demolish the shops and trying to dispossess them from the shops. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are running a juice shops and they are paying taxes as determined by the 2nd respondent and also obtained trade license for conducting the business. It is submitted that without issuing the notice, the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners and demolish the shops. 3. Learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners are running shops on the road margin and causing inconvenience to the public and traffic. The projection of the shops are causing inconvenience to the public and the traffic. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities shall follow due process of law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. Perused the material on record. 5. Considering the submissions, the writ petition is disposed off, making it clear that the petitioners shall not cause any inconvenience to the commuters of the road and also look for alternate land for conducting their business within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of order. Till then the respondents 3 and 4 are hereby restrained from demolishing the shops of the petitioners and not to dispossess them from their shops. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.24.09.2025 KGM 224 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.26715 of 2025 Date: 24.09.2025 KGM