APHC010055862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3045 of 2025 Between: Abbireddy Venkata Ratnam and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ANJANEYULU TIRUMALASETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J W.P.No.3045 of 2025 ORDER : This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.3 and 2 in permitting the respondent No.4 for erecting the Roof Top Tower (RTT) in busy residential premises where high tension electricity wires and poles are situated at house bearing No.30-27-5, Ward No.5, Kakani Nagar, Vijayawada, without considering locality people objections for being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and devoid of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith revoke permission for erecting and operating Roof Top Tower to the respondent No.4 in busy residential premises where high tension electricity wires and poles are situated at house bearing No.30-27-5, Ward No.5, Kakani Nagar, Vijayawada, by considering the objections of people.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development representing respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Corporation. 3. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.3341 of 2019. 3 VS,J W.P.No.3045 of 2025 4. Operative portion of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.3341 of 2019 reads as under: “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned TERM Cell of DoT by way of a fresh representation for redressal of their grievance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioners approaching the said Cell, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said authority/Cell in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 3 to 5 also and communicate the decision to the petitioners.” 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.3341 of 2019. No order as to costs. 6. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. 7. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.3341 of 2019, to this order. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 12.02.2025 IBL 4 VS,J W.P.No.3045 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3045 of 2025 Dt: 12.02.2025 IBL