Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24933 (AP)

Sri K. Thimmaraju, S/o K. Aswarthappa v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

WP/893/2014 · 2026-03-09

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010527632014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 893/2014 Between: 1. SRI K. THIMMARAJU, S/O K. ASWARTHAPPA,, D.NO.13-15-325, PIPELINE ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. P.C. LALITHA, W/O ANJANEYULU,, D.NO.13-2-39, BOYAPETA, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SMT. K.B.LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA,, W/O LATE K.E. BUDDAPPA, D.NO.13-2-14, BOYAPETA, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETERIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ CHAIRMAN TRICOR ANANTAPUR DIST, - 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP.BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE HINDUPUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, S.T. CORPORATION, PENNAR BHAVAN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: None appeared for the Writ Petitioners. 2. The prayer sought in this case would indicate that the Writ Petitioners herein have challenged the Eviction Proceedings dated 09.01.2014. The Docket would indicate that no protection has been given to the Petitioners for their continuation in the shops. However, vide Order dated 22.01.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.976 of 2014, this Court has given liberty to the Petitioners to participate in the auction. The relevant portion of the Order is usefully extracted hereunder: “It is also open to the petitioners to participate in the auctions and in case they emerge as the best bidders, their bids can be considered, but not otherwise.” 3. Since there is no Interim Order protecting the Petitioners and that by an Order dated 22.01.2014, this Court had given liberty to the Petitioners to participate in the auction, this Court is of the opinion that no cause survives at this point of time. However, since none has appeared to confirm this position, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 4. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:10.03.2026 Vns