1 APHC010005232014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12181/2014 Between: 1. JUJJURU KUSUMA KUMARI, W/O. JNSV PRASAD, D.NO.1-142 NEAR GOVERNMENT JR. COLLEGE. RAMPACHODAVARAM (V & M) EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHAODAVARM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, RAMPACHODAVARM MANDAL, RAMPACHODAVARM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2 2. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the parties. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: <It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of 5th Respondent in not processing petitioner application dt. 20.04.2010 for construction of shop rooms in R.S.No.125/3 of Ramapachodavaram Village, East Godavari District and as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to grant permission for construction of shop rooms in petitioner site in R.S.No.125/3 of Rampachodavaram Village and land and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.= 3. This Writ Petition is of the year 2014 and it was listed twice earlier (on 22.04.2014 & 28.04.2014). 4. The above extract of the prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner was only seeking consideration of the Application submitted by her on 20.04.2010. With regard to an Application made by the Writ Petitioner on 20.04.2010, this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2014, which itself stands vitiated by delay and latches. This apart, the said Application would have elapsed by afflux of time. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no cause of action. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 3 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 02.12.2025 Vns