APHC010719452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.37 of 2026 along with W.A.Nos.38 & 43 of 2026 Bench Sr.Nos:-58 to 60 [3446] W.A.No.37 of 2026:- Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates Advocate for respondents : Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 19th February 2026 P C : In the instant cases, three writ appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos.12184 & 15771 of 2024 and 14603 of 2025. 2. The grievance of the appellant herein in W.P.No.12184 of 2024 was the direction issued by the learned single Judge whereby liberty was granted to private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who are petitioners in W.P.No.15771 of 2024, to approach respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation of 2 Visakhapatnam to have the deviations compounded to the extent of construction or alternatively, to file an application invoking G.O.Ms.No.225, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 12.11.2025 to seek regularization of the unauthorized construction. 3. It thus appears that the appellant was aggrieved of the construction raised by private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to the extent that the construction was being raised contrary to the approved plans. 4. The direction issued by the learned single Judge further was that the respondent Corporation authorities would not interfere with the construction activity of the petitioners in W.P.No.15771 of 2024 i.e., what was sought to be emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that if the construction was in deviation of the approved plans, there was no question of any direction being issued which would permit the private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to continue with their unauthorized construction activity contrary to the plans which were earlier approved. 5. We would have been with the learned Senior Counsel on this issue. However, circumstances have since changed in the interregnum inasmuch as private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein did approach the official respondent Corporation and had succeeded in getting a fresh authorization with regard to the modified plans, which stands approved by virtue of approval dated 31.12.2025. 3 6. According to the statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation, the construction undertaken by private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein is strictly in accordance with the modified and approved plans. 7. Be that as it may, since the construction activity is now being undertaken as per the approved plans notwithstanding the fact that private respondent Nos.4 and 5 had earlier made certain deviations contrary to the approved plans, nothing survives for us to adjudicate in the present set of appeals, which are rendered academic. 8. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 4 196 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.A.Nos.37, 38 & 43 of 2026 Dt : 19.02.2026 AMD