Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10056 (AP)

G.Nagendra Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/25059/2026 · 2026-09-08

Kiranmayee Mandava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010459212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25059/2026 Between: 1. G.NAGENDRA PRASAD,, S/O. LATE KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, RIO. D.NO.44-34-11/1, NANDAGIRI NAGAR, NARENDRA NAGAR, CHEKKUDURATHI MEDA ROAD, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 016. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522238. 2. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, TENNETI BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. - 530002.. 3. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, TENNETI BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. -530002. 4. THE SANITARY INSPECTOR/ CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, WARD NO.43, AKKYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM TENNETI BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.- 530002 ...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 toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in taking necessary action against the unauthorized 2 encroachments over the Gedda and the 20/30 feet in width public road, the indiscriminate parking of vehicles, the hazardous dumping of garbage, and the discharging of sewage and latrine outlets into the Gedda at Nandagiri Nagar, Chekkudurathi Meda Road, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith inspect the subject area and take strict action in accordance with law to remove all encroachments and obstructions, prevent indiscriminate parking, disconnect the illegal latrine outlets, and restore the sanitation and free passage of the said road and Gedda IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 02-07-2026 within a stipulated period, take immediate steps .to clean the Gedda, stop the discharge from sewage and latrine outlets into the Gedda, prevent further encroachments, and clear the vehicular obstructions on the 20/30 feet in width public road at Nandagiri Nagar, Chekkudurathi Meda Road, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Heard Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the inaction of the respondents in taking necessary action against the unauthorized encroachments over 20X30 feet road, Gedda, Nandagiri Nagar, Chekkudurathi Meda Road, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. 3. It is contended that the petitioner made several representations, as detailed below, and each representation raised different grievances. Sl.No. Date Reason 1. 12.06.2016 Parking of vehicles 2. 17.11.2020 Cleaning of Gedda and parking of vehicles 3. 30.03.2021 Parking of vehicles 4. 05.01.2022 Cleaning of Gedda and parking of vehicles 5. 19.09.2025 Cleaning of Gedda and parking of vehicles 6. 02.07.2026 Occupying of Gedda portion and cleaning of Gedda 3. None of the said representations were considered. 4. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd to 4th respondents point out that each 4 representation raises different grievances, from parking of vehicles on the road to clearing of garbage. 4. A perusal of the record reflects that the grievances relate to 2016 to 2026. Unless a comprehensive representation is made to the respondents pointing out their present grievances or concerns, no direction in the present writ petition can be given to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the alleged pending representations, since the petitioner has submitted different representations at different points of time, raising separate and distinct grievances each time, and some of them are a decade old. 5. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to submit a consolidated comprehensive representation setting out their grievances to the 2nd respondent - Municipal Corporation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After such representation is filed, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 09.09.2026 ANI 5 141 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:25059 of 2026 Dated:09.09.2026 ANI