IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3456 OF 2025 Between; V. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, S/o. V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ Un-Employee, R/o. D.No.53/16-2, Kagithalapenta, R.V.Nagar (Post), Kadapa City, Y.S.R District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa Y.S.R District, Rep., by its Commissioner. 3. The Standing Committee, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa, Y.S.R District, Rep., by its Chairman ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not allowing the petitioner to execute the work of maintenance of Mineral Water Plant at ITI Circle, Kadapa, Y.S.R District entrusted in his favour, without assigning any reason, that too during subsistence of the one lease/rental period as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the P^f^tyjtion of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner,Ip execute the work of Maintenance of .Mineral Water Plant at ITI .pifclef Kadapa, Y.S.R District, during subsistence of Lease period and pass ' ^Glvbther order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances 'Of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the work of maintenance of Mineral Water Plant at ITI Circle, Kadapa, Y.S.R District, entrusted in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the PetitionerSRI V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPALITY) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010065932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] P • FRIDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3456/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER V Pradeep Kumar Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VR REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not allowing the petitioner to execute the work of maintenance of Mineral Water Plant at ITI Circle Kadapa Y.S.R District entrusted in his favour without assigning any reason that too during subsistence of the lease/rental period as arbitrary illegal colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to execute the work of Maintenance of Mineral Water Plant at ITI Circle Kadapa Y S R District during subsistence of Lease period and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case 02 Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent No.2 through the proceedings in Roc.No.931/E1/2014, dated 21.04.2022 3. entrusted the maintenance of Mineral Water Plant to the petitioner on rental basis for a period of three (03) years with effect from 01.05.2022 to 31.04.2025 with certain terms and conditions. As the lease period is getting expired on a representation dated 25.01.2025 to the respondent No.2 requesting him to extend the lease for a further period of three years. While things thus stand, now the respondent No.2 and 3 are not 31.04.2025, he submitted 3 allowing him to execute the work of maintenance cf Mineral Water Plant at ITI Circle, Kadapa YSR District entrusted in his favor without following the due process of law and without assigning any reason, that tpo, during subsistence of the lease/rental period. As such, the petitioner prays to pass appropriate orders protecting his interest. 04. Today, when the matter came up for hearing at admission stage, the learned Standing Counsel has furnished the copy of the written instructions of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation dated 07.02.2025, wherein it is stated that the respondent has not issued any instructions for the removal of the petitioner’s water plant. Furthermore, the lease period is valid until 30.04.2025, as such, the respondent has not taken any action in the subject matter. It is also submitted that this respondent strictly adheres to the due process of law in all matters concerning such issues. 05. Perused the material available on record. 06. Taking into consideration the submissions of both the learned counsel and written instructions of the Commissioner dated 07.02.2025, instead of keeping the writ petition, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s water plant during the subsistence of lease period i.e., 30.04.2025, without following due process of law. V 4 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa Y.S.R District, 3. The Chairman, Standing Committee, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa, Y.S.R District, 4. One CC to SRI. V. R. REDDY KOWURI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRI. A.S.C. BOSE, Advocate (SC FOR MUNICIPALITY) [OPUC] 7. Three C.D.Copies nm Ik HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3456 of 2025 = 0 7 MAR 2025 . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS