APHC010052822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 3389 OF 2026 Between: 1. GANDHAM SIMHACHALAM NAIDU,, S/O. PARAMESWARA NAIDU, AGED 38 YEARS, RIO. CHINA GANGAVARAM (V), TENUGUPUDI (P), DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-531030. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TENNETI BHAVAN, RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER-530002. 3. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TOWN PLANNING SECTION, TENNETI BHAVAN, RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530002. 4. SADALLA PRAVEENA, D/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED 32 YEARS, RIO. D. NO. 31-50-108113, DOCK YARD COLONY, SEELANAGAR, TUNGLAM (V), GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530012. ...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 2 pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declared the inaction of the 3rd respondent in issuing Notice under Stop Work Order vide Letter No. SWO/1086/2025/0082 dated 05.01.2026 demanding the petitioner herein for stopping further construction of residential building in Plot No. 23p in Survey No. 77/4, Sai Nagar Area, Chinamushidiwada Village, Ward No. 97, Zone-VIII of GVMC, Visakhapatnam as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and amounts to non- application of mind and disobedience in discharging their legitimateduties and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction activities as per the approved layout 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 pleased to suspend the Notice under Stop Work Order vide Letter No. SWO11086/2025/0082 dated 05.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHESH ADAVIVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Mahesh Adavivarapu, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Vijaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C.Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has submitted the Written Instructions dated 23.02.2026 furnished by the Zonal Commissioner, Pendurthi Zone, GVMC. Copy of it is supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The Written Instruction would indicate that the shortfall amount of Rs.13,650/- has been paid by the Writ Petitioner herein. However, Para-7 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would indicate that the Respondent No.4 has filed a Suit bearing O.S.No.70 of 2025 against the Writ Petitioner seeking permanent injunction on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. It also transpires from the Written Instruction that the Writ Petitioner herein has also filed O.S.No.79 of 2025 seeking Permanent Injunction on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. It is also submitted that both the suits are now pending for adjudication. It is also submitted that in both the suits respective parties have filed Interlocutory Applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code and the same are pending for adjudication. 4. Although, the Writ Petitioner claims that he is in possession, due to pendency of the suits for permanent injunction as well as the Interlocutory Applications seeking interim injunction, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Under these circumstances where the suits are already being pending for determination of possession between the Writ Petitioner and the Unofficial Respondent No.4, this Court would decline to entertain this Writ Petition. 4 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 23.02.2026 Mnr 5 84 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3389 OF 2026 Dt.23.02.2026 Mnr