1 APHC010088982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5595/2026 Between: 1. POLAROUTHU POLI RAJU, S/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, AGED 40 YEARS, D.NO.12-26-7/1, CHINAGANTYADA, SRINAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. - 530003 2. MUKKU SAIRAMTEJA, S/O. DURGAPRASAD, AGED 28 YEARS, D.NO.27-3-124, CHINAGANTYADA, GAJUWAKA.530003 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI. 522237 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM.530003 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONE6, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, 4. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ZONE-V, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM 530003 5. M/S INDIRA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PJDSK REDDY, D.NO.1-102/1, MAIN ROAD, BAJI JUNCTION, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530003 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri KSN. Varaprasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners appearing online and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5. 2. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 27.02.2026, S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Zonal Commissioner, Aganampudi Zone, GVMC. Copy of it is not supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners because he is appearing online. The Written Instruction is taken on record. In addition to the Written Instruction, Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, has also submitted the Proceedings of the Commissioner of GVMC addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Hon’ble Institution of Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh dated 20.07.2023. 3. This Court has perused the Written Instructions as well as the Proceedings of the Commissioner dated 20.07.2023. Both would indicate that the Petitioners had already approached the Lokayukta in the month of May, 2023 and during the process of enquiry initiated by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the Joint Inspection was conducted by the Town Surveyor of GVMC along with the Municipal Surveyor of Gajuwaka Mandal. It transpires from the Written 3 Instruction that during the inspection, it was verified and it was noticed that the Building Permission issued to the Unofficial Respondent No.5 pertains to the lands situated in Sy.Nos.28/44, 28/47, 28/50A, 28/50B, 28/50C & 28/51 of Aganampudi Village, but not in Sy.No.28/49 as alleged by the Petitioners. It is also submitted that the Report was submitted by the Commissioner of GVMC to the Hon’ble Lokayukta, which is the Proceeding dated 20.07.2023. 4. This Court has perused the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition. Since the issue is already pending with the Lokayukta and since the Report submitted to the Lokayukta is against the interest of the Petitioners herein, the Petitioners have approached this Court, which is nothing but an abuse of process. By their election and conduct, the Petitioners have chosen to firstly approach the Lokayukta, and while the same is pending there, it appears that since the Joint Survey Report is against the Petitioners’ interest, the Petitioners have approached this Court, which is nothing but forum shopping. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition on the ground that it is an abuse of process. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:09.03.2026 Vns