Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1033 (AP)

MUCHANAPALLI PRASHANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/10469/2026 · 2026-04-20

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010205042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 10469/2026 Between: 1. MUCHANAPALLI PRASHANTHI, W/O.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.10-372/2, 14TH WARD, YERRABALEM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PENTAPATI ARATHI,, W/O.VASU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.14-1603, DOLASNAGAR, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. HESABUDDIN SHAIK,, S/O.RUHUL AMEEN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DELITE DHABA, YERRABALEM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. IVATURI MEENAKSHI,, W/O. VARAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, RIO. DELITE DHABA, YERRABALEM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. KATTA VENKATESH,, S/O.TIRUPATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.10-332/5/A, YERRABALEM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2 2. MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI - TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503. 4. THE CITY PLANNER, MANGALAGIRI - TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 5. THE ZONAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-520001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Sk. Mukthiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has taken this Court through the contents of Paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 3. Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, has submitted Written Instruction furnished by the Commissioner of Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, dated 20.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Petitioners and the same is taken on record. 3 4. In the Second Paragraph of Page No.2 of the Written Instruction, it has been stated by the Commissioner of Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation as under: <It is not correct to say that his respondent staff tried to dispossess the petitioners from the shops and residences of the petitioners situated at respective D. No 10-372/2, 14-434/54, 10- 332/5/B and 10-332/5/A, 14th Ward, Yerrabalem, Mangalagiri opposite to Delite Dhaba. Yerrabalem. Mangalagiri, Guntur District This respondent never did that. The petitioner, with mere apprehension, has approached the Hon'ble High Court with false statement as if this respondent trying to dispossess the petitioners from the shops and residences without following due procedure. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent will always follow the due process of law, as and when a necessity arises to remove any encroachment on a road margin, including the petitioners' structures.= 5. The above extract would indicate that the Respondents have not interfered with the possession or enjoyment of the shops or residences of the Petitioners and that they would follow due process of law. 6. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Official Respondents to follow due process of law in the event any coercive steps are sought to be taken against the Writ Petitioners in future. 7. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 21.04.2026 DSV 4 115 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 10469/2026 21.04.2026 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No : WRIT PETITION NO: 10469/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 1. 21.04.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6