M. Sathya Narayana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/9385/2026 · 2026-05-06
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2090 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2090 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO.9385 OF 2026
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
“to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents more particularly the 2nd Respondent in not considering the representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by the Petitioner seeking cancellation of the temporary registration/permission granted in favour of Srinivasa Multi Speciality Hospital to run and operate in the premises bearing D.No. 12-2- 978 Old Pavani Hospital Sai Nagar 3rd Cross Anantapur belonging to M/s Sree Nilayam without consent of all the partners and without verifying the
order dated 28.12.2022 passed in O.S No.124 of 2022 by the Honble Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur being illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the said representation and cancel the temporary registration/permission granted in favour of Srinivasa Multi Speciality Hospital.”
2. The petitioner states that he is one of the joint owners of the property bearing D.No.12-2-978 (Old Pavani Hospital), Sai Nagar 3rd Cross, Anantapur. The petitioner and the other co-owners leased the premises to Respondent No.3 for running a hospital. Based on this,
NV,J WP.No.9385 of 2026
2 Respondent No.3 obtained temporary permission/registration to run a hospital under the name “Srinivasa Multi Speciality Hospital” and has been running at the same premises, while awaiting final registration and licenses. 3. Later, disputes arose between the petitioner and the other joint owners regarding the property. Because of this, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.03.2026 to Respondent No.2 requesting for cancellation of the registration/license granted to Respondent No.3, claiming that there was no valid lease in force in favour of Respondent No.3. Although the representation was submitted on 24.03.2026, the authorities did not take any action. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is informed by the respondents that during the pendency of the writ petition, temporary registration/license already granted to Respondent No.3 came to be expired on 01.05.2026 itself. 5. During hearing, the counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted that Respondent No.3 had already filed a suit based on the lease deed said to have been executed by all the joint owners in favour of the firm and
NV,J WP.No.9385 of 2026
3 the same is pending, more so, according to Respondent No.3, the lease is still valid. Therefore, Respondent No.3 claims that it is entitled to renewal/extension of the license or registration for running the hospital in accordance with law. 3. After considering the facts and submissions made by both sides, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of since the registration/license in question had already been expired on
01.05.2026. As such, no further orders or relief can be granted in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation or take appropriate legal steps against the respondents or Respondent No.3, if advised. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 5.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. __________________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA
Date:07.05.2026
SP