1 APHC010541442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 28293/2024 Between: 1. B SARASWATHI, D/O SUBBI REDDY, AGED 64 YEAR.S OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLIVILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. MR. B. DILIP, S/O B. SARASWATHI, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY MR. B. SARASWATHI AGED 64 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. SRI SWANIY HATHIRAMJEE MUTT, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 122, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATHI ANDRA PRADESH. 2 4. THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OLD MATERNITY HOSPITAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501 5. L ARUNA, W/O L. JAYARAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATI 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 a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ declaring denying access to the Petitioners property is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable against the Petitioner and violate principles of natural justice and under Art. 300 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to execute the sale for 84 sq. yards out of 212 sq. yards out of their total extent of Ac. 00.07 Cents in Sy. No. 266/3A, situated in Mutyalareddypalli area, Tirupati Urban Mandal, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 782 dated 05.10.2004, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition direct the Respondents not to obstruct the Petitioners for their ingress and egress to the Air Bypass Road through land on front side of their south facing building for 84 sq. yards out of 212 sq. yards out of their total extent of Ac. 00.07 Cents in Sy. No. 266/3A, situated in Mutyalareddypalli area, Tirupati Urban Mandal, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CH SRINIVASA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 3 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH WRIT PETITION NO: 17774/2024 Between: 1. L. ARUNA, W/O. LATE L. JAYARAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. 19-3-2H, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI -517501 TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. SRI SWAMY HATHIRAMJEE MUTT, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVEOFFICER, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 6. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI 7. PAPPIREDDY DEEPTHI REDDY D/O P CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.17655, 96TH P1N, MAPLE GROVE,MINNESOTA -55311 REP BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY YERRAM REDDY RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE Y.RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 4 8. SMT B SARASWATHI D/O SUBBI REDDY, AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. MR B DILEEP S/O B SARASWATHI, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, , R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.REP BY GPA HOLDER MR.B.SARASWATHI AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,R/O THALUPULAREDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. RR 7, 8 AND 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.03.2025 IN I.A.NO. 02 OF 2024 AND 03 OF 2024 RESPECTIVELY. ...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 a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1 and 2 in granting approvals to the 3rd Respondent for execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner for an extent of Ac.0.0438 cents (212 Sq Yards) in Sy.No.266/3A of Tirupati Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District, as illegal arbitrary, unjustifiable, unsustainable and much against the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.782, dt.5.10.2004, and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 forthwith to grant approvals for the Respondent No. 3 to execute the registered sale deed in the name of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.0438 cents (212 Sq Yards) in Sy.No.266/3A of Tirupati Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District by duly deleting the entry related to the said piece of land from the Prohibitory List under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 5 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner's possession and effective enjoyment of the subject land to an extent of 212 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 266/3A located in Tirupati, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 permit me to come on record as the respondent No.7 in W.P.No. 17774 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 implead these Petitioners as Respondents to the above Writ Petition so as to ensure a fair adjudication of the reliefs sought by the Writ Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice as otherwise the Petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury which can’t be compensated otherwise. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 3. CH SRINIVASA RAJU 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 5. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 6. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS WRIT PETITION NO: 28874/2024 6 Between: 1. PAPPIREDDY DEEPTHI REDDY, D/O. P. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 17655, 96TH PIN, MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA-55311 REP., BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY YERRAM REDDY RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, S/O. LATE Y.RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, , ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 3. SRI SWAMY HATHIRAJEE MUTT, REP., BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATI TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OLD MATERNITY HOSPITAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. L ARUNA, W/O. L.JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DOOR N0.19-3-2H, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI CITY, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, , ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 3. SRI SWAMY HATHIRAJEE MUTT, REP., BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATI TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OLD MATERNITY HOSPITAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. L ARUNA, W/O. L.JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DOOR N0.19-3-2H, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI CITY, TIRUPATI 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 and their subordinates in interfering with the petitioners rights in using the land in an Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.266/3A of Tirupati Village fields, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District for her ingress and egress to reach the Air Bye- Pass Road, being claimed that the same is belong to the respondent No.3, evenafter, issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.782, (Endowments- 11/1), 7 Department, dated 05.10.2004 by the respondent No.1 enabling the adjacent land owners to buy the same on negotiations which was also confirmed by this Honble Court in earlier round of litigation as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.3 and 4 not to interfere with the petitioners right in using the land in an Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.266/3A of Tirupati Village fields, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District for her ingress and egress to reach Air Bye-Pass Road, being claimed that the same is belong to the respondent No.3 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 & 4 to allow the petitioner to use the land in an Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.266/3A of Tirupati Village fields, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District, for her ingress and egress to reach Air Bye- Pass Roadpass subject to deposit of her share of the prevailing market value of the same, subject result of the Writ Petition No. 17774 of 2024, pending disposal of the Writ Petition other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH The Court made the following: 8 COMMON ORDER:- Heard Sri CH. Srinivasa Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28293 of 2024; learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Veera Reddy, appearing for Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17774 of 2024; learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy appearing for Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28874 of 20224; Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The claim of petitioners in all the Writ Petitions pertains to a piece of land measuring Ac.0.07 cents or a portion thereof. Their respective claims are as follows: Name of the Petitioners W.P. Nos. Relief Sought Extent / Area claimed L. Aruna W.P. No. 17774 of 2024 Execution of the sale deed Ac. 0.0438 cents (212 Sq. Yds) in Sy. No. 266/3A B. Saraswathi and B. Dilip W.P. No. 28293 of 2024 Execution of the sale deed 84 sq. yds in Sy. No. 266/3A P. Deepthi Reddy W.P. No. 28874 of 2024 Claims right of ingress and egress through the subject land Through Ac. 0.07 cents in Sy. No. 266/3A 9 3. It is contended that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.17774 of 2024 (Smt. L. Aruna) is the vendor of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28293 of 2024 and 28874 of 2024. The writ petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, viz., Smt. Saraswathi, B. Dilip, and the father of Ms. Pappireddy Deepthi Reddy, Sri Chandra Mohana Reddy, have purchased their respective extents lands from Smt. L. Aruna in 1999 vide separate registered sale deeds. 4. The extents sold by Smt. L. Aruna are as follows: 280 Sy. Yds. to Saraswathi 140 Sy. Yds. to B. Dilip 280 Sy. Yds. to P. Chandra Mohan Reddy (Father of Ms Deepthi Reddy) Smt. L. Aruna, in turn, purchased an extent of Ac. 0.25 ½ cents (1234.18 Sq.yds) of land under a registered sale deed in 1993 from one Sri Durgam Govind. 5. The land situated on the southern side of the land sold to the petitioners (W.P.No.28874 and 28293 of 2024) belongs to Hathiramji Mutt, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petitions 6. Smt. L. Aruna, made an application to the authorities seeking alienation of the said land to her along with another extent of Ac.0.38 cents. It is further contended that although she is no longer the owner of the adjacent land to the subject land of Ac.0.07 cents, she pursued the matter with the authorities and filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.17774 of 2024 seeking execution 10 of sale deed in her favour, in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.782 Revenue (Assignment-I) dated 05.10.2004. 7. Smt. L. Aruna, contends that she is the registered owner of the adjacent patta land having purchased through a registered sale deed dated 03.11.1993 in Sy. No.266/2. She submitted applications to the respondents in 1995 and 1999, seeking the alienation of land owned by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner. In response, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, directed 3rd respondent to obtain a detailed report regarding the status and market value of the land. Report was accordingly submitted stating that the land in Sy. No.266/3A (0.07 acres) was unfit for construction, and the same was forwarded to respondent No.1 for further action. The 1st respondent directed the Executive Officer of TTD to inspect the site; EO submitted a report at 05.10.2004 confirming that the land was not suitable for construction. Based on these findings, G.O. Ms No.782 dated 05.10.2004 was issued, allowing the sale of 1285 Sq. Yds. in Sy.No.266/1 and 212 Sq. Yds. in Sy.No.266/3A to Smt. L. Aruna. Accordingly a sale deed was executed and registered on 07.02.2005. The petitioner was in possession of the said land. 8. It is contended that on account of financial constraints, she had sold her private land adjacent to the subject land to the writ petitioners in W.P.No.28293 of 2024 and W.P.No.28874 of 2024. Her vendees, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.28293 of 2024 and W.P.No.28874 of 2024, filed Writ 11 Petitions, challenging the GO.Ms.No.782 dated 05.10.2004 to the extent; it allows the sale of 212 Sq. Yds. of land in Sy.No.266/3A to Smt. L. Aruna through a Writ Petitions in W.P.No.25152 of 2004 and W.P.No.546 of 2005. 9. However, subsequently proceedings vide G.O. Ms.No.1787 dated 05.12.2006 were issued, cancelling the earlier order in G.O. Ms No.782 dated 05.10.2004 on the ground that the market value had been undervalued and that the procedural requirements under the Endowment Act had not been properly followed. Smt. L. Aruna challenged the said cancellation by way of a Writ Petition in W.P. No.28345 of 2007. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions in W.P.No.25152 of 2004 and W.P.No.546 of 2005 filed by vendees vide judgment dated 20-04-2016. And by judgment dated 02.05.2018 in W.P. No.28345 of 2007, this Court set aside G.O. Ms.No.1787 dated 05.12.2006. 10. It is further contended that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, included the subject land in the list of prohibited properties vide proceedings dated 05.07.2016. Challenging the same, Smt. L. Aruna had filed W.P.No.8074 of 2024. Despite several representations made thereafter, the approval to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner has not been granted, prompting the filing of the present Writ Petition. 12 11. It is contended on behalf of Smt. L. Aruna (in W.P.No.17774 of 2024) that she had made an application on 25.08.1995 to the Commissioner of Endowments seeking alienation of the property belonging to the Hathiramji Mutt. Thereafter on a series of representations being made after duly obtaining a report from the TTD that the subject land was not useful to TTD, and any way the subject land was declared as not useful to Hathiramji Mutt, G.O.Ms.No.782 Revenue (Assignment-I) dated 05.10.2004 was issued according permission under Section 80(1)(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, to sell the subject land along with another extent in the following manner: S.No. Extent (Sq.ft/yard) Survey No. Rate per Sq. Yard Amount Name 1. 1908/212 266/3A 2575 5,45,900 L. Aruna W/o Jayarama Reddy 2. 610/67.78 266/3A 2575 1,74,527 D. Ram Prasad S/o Venkataramanaiah 3. 578/64 266/3A 2575 1,66,372 D. Sudhakar S/o Venkataramanaiah 4. 1285 266/1 2575 33,08,875 L. Aruna W/o Jayarama Reddy 12. Be that as it may, perusal of the previous Writ Petition in W.P.No.25152 of 2004 filed by Smt. Saraswathi and Sri Chandra Mohana Reddy (late), appears that seeking the very same relief as was sought in the 13 said Writ Petitions, the instant Writ Petitions in W.P.No.28293 of 2024 and W.P.No.28874 have been filed. 13. It is contended by the learned Counsels appearing in both the Writ petitions that G.O.Ms. No.782 dated 05.10.2004 provides permission to the Commissioner, Endowments, to sell the subject land in favour of the persons, whose lands are adjacent to the subject land. Although Smt. L. Aruna may have applied for alienation in the year 1995, when she was still the owner of the land, since the same was sold in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.28293 of 2024 & W.P.28874 of 2024 in 1999 and since the land found was found to be not useful for their respective usage of the Mutt and the government it was considered necessary to sell the same to the adjacent land owners. The government and Matt intended to sell the land to the adjacent owners to whomsoever, it was useful. 14. Having regard to the same, the learned counsel argued that it is the petitioners (in W.P.No.28293 of 2024 & W.P.28874 of 2024), whose lands are adjacent/neighbouring lands to the subject lands, as on the date of issuance of the G.O., that the same should be sold in their favour for better enjoyment of the land, that Smt. Aruna sold in their favour. 15. Learned counsel Sri P. Veera Reddy, appearing for Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner in 14 W.P.No.17774 of 2024, contends that since the land was not useful for the construction of any building and was not considered as an asset having any face value, the Matt and the government have taken a conscious decision to allot the same in favour of the petitioner, Smt. L. Aruna, even before she had sold the land in favour of Smt. Saraswathi and the Sri Chandra Mohana Reddy (late), vide the said G.O., the respondents have recognized Smt. L. Aruna as the person in whose favour the land should be sold. In the earlier round of litigation, when the show-cause notice was issued seeking objections to the cancellation of the allotment, followed by an order of cancellation, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28345 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of holding that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the G.O.Ms. No.782 dated 05.10.2004. 16. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25152 of 2004 and 546 of 2005 has become final, and so also the order of this Court in W.P.No.28345 of 2007. After W.P.No.28345 of 2007 was allowed vide order dated 02.05.2018, the petitioner, Smt. L. Aruna has made a representation for the registration of the subject land in her favour. 17. Having regard to the same, it is stated that the petitioner Smt. L. Aruna has made a representation to the authorities requesting consideration of the registration of the sale deed. Since they had already deposited the sale consideration, no orders were passed on the said 15 representation. She had approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.17774 of 2024. 18. Considered the rival submissions. 19. As seen from the record, Smt. Saraswathi and Sri Chandra Mohana Reddy (late) had earlier challenged the allotment order issued in favour of Smt. L. Aruna under G.O.Ms. No.782 dated 05.10.2004, and the said Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the judgment passed in the said cases has become final. More than two decades after the filing of the previous Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought the same relief in the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.28293 of 2024, the principles of res judicata bar the relief sought by the petitioners. 20. After passing of the judgment in W.P.No.25152 of 2004 and W.P.No.546 of 2005 in the absence of any changed circumstances or change in the cause of action for filing the instant Writ Petitions, the vendees' claim would not be sustainable. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.28345 of 2007 setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.1787 dated 05.12.2006, the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.17774 of 2024 is sustainable. Further the nature of relief sought by the petitioner in W.P.No.28874 of 2024 is in the nature of injunction, which is not maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16 21. In view of the foregoing, the W.P.No.28293 of 2024 & W.P.No.28874 of 2024 are dismissed and W.P.No.17774 of 2024 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:15.10.2025 MVK 17 316 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS:28293, 17774 & 28874 of 2024 Date:15.10.2025 MVK