1 APHC010005412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 1204/2026 Between: 1. PERUVALIKAD RAVI, S/O (L) PERUVALIKAD VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA, 63 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 8-42-45, TAMIL STREET, CHINNA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017 2. KABIR DAS LEELANATHAN,, W/O KABIR DAS VELANATHAN, 51 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 8-21-4, TAMIL STREET, NEAR MASJID, CHINNA WALTAIR, L B COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. (MAANDUD) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503 2. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, PRIME HILL CREST, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR DGP OFFICE, BESIDE ULTRATECH READYMIX PLANT, VADDESWARAM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 502 3. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER, TENNETI BHAVAN, ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 002 4. ZONAL COMMISSIONER, ZONE-ILL, GVMC, ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 002 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SAILESH PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Samantha Krishna S, learned Counsel representing Sri K. Sailesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (Respondent Nos.3 & 4). 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction on the part of the Official Respondents in responding to the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 29.09.2025 through Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) (at pages 70 and 71 of this Writ Petition). 3. Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Zonal Commissioner along with two documents namely the Building Plan Approval dated 18.12.2025 and the photograph showing that the construction of a building is in progress. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the same is taken on record. 4. Copy of the approved plan at page 4 of the Written Instruction would indicate that the names of the Applicants in the approved plan are as under: i. Sri K. Chinna Rao, ii. Sri P. Ravi (Writ Petitioner No.1 herein), and, 3 iii. Smt. K. Leelanathan (Writ Petitioner No.2 herein) 5. The Written Instruction would also indicate that Sri K. Chinna Rao has already filed a Suit bearing O.S.No.1282/2025 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam against the Respondent Corporation for grant of Permanent Injunction. It is also stated in the Written Instruction that the Petitioners herein have also filed another Suit bearing O.S.No.1154/2025 against one Sri Akula Venkata Apparao and three (3) others seeking Permanent Injunction against the third parties. 6. Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4, would submit that the Official Respondents have objected to the construction that was undertaken by the Petitioners herein in deviating from the approved plan. He would also submit that insofar as the issue of O.S.No.1154/2025 is concerned, the Respondent Corporation is not a party and therefore, the said Respondent Corporation is not concerned with the relief of Permanent Injunction sought by the Petitioners in O.S.No.1154/2025. The pleadings and the documents would indicate that the Petitioners’ Representation dated 29.09.2025 (at pages 70 & 71) is concerning the interference of the third parties. Insofar as the sanctioned plan is concerned, it is noticed that the Corporation has already issued a sanctioned plan jointly in favour of the Petitioners herein and one Sri K. Chinna Rao way back on 18.12.2025. 7. Having taken note of the submission made by Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4, that the Respondent Corporation intervened when it was noticed that the Petitioners have undertaken construction in violation/deviation of the sanctioned plan, it is clarified that this Court would not render any kind of protection to anyone who violates or deviates from the sanctioned plan; and that it transpires from the facts of this case that the Writ Petitioners have deviated from the sanctioned plan. 4 8. 4 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is not only devoid of any merit but is also an abuse of process. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed not only as being devoid of any merit but is also an abuse of process. No Order as to costs. 9. It is further clarified that the Respondents are statutorily obligated to ensure that the Writ Petitioners shall not deviate from the sanctioned plan. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:02.02.2026 Vns