1 APHC010181712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos: 10063, 10525 & 10788 of 2026 W.P.No.10063 of 2026: Between: 1. M/S CHANDANA BROTHERS, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE LENIN CENTER, VIJAYAWADA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER CHANDANA KEDARISH S/O CHANDANA NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS D.NO.33- 14-12E, KADIYALA VANI STREET, SEETHARAMPURAM, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 520002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.-520001 3. THE ASST CITY PLANNER III, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. - 520001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC W.P.No.10525 of 2026: Between: 1. M/S. CHANDANA BROTHERS, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE LENIN CENTER, VIJAYAWADA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER CHANDANA KEDARISH S/O CHANDANA NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS D.NO.33- 14-12E, KADIYALA VANI STREET, SEETHARAMPURAM, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 520002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.-520001 3. THE ASST CITY PLANNER III, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. - 520001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC 3 W.P.No.10788 of 2026: Between: 1. M/S. CHANDANA BROTHERS, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE LENIN CENTER, VIJAYAWADA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER CHANDANA KEDARISH S/O CHANDANA NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS D.NO.33- 14-12E, KADIYALA VARI STREET SEETHARAMPURAM, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 520002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.-520001 3. THE ASST CITY PLANNERIII, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. - 520001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4 ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Sk. Rafi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 2. Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions along with photographs furnished by the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation dated 21.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the same is taken on record. 3. This Court has perused the Written Instructions and also the photographs. This Court has also seen the impugned Proceedings and considered the impugned Proceedings in each of the Writ Petitions and also the Judgment in Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic and Ors. Vs. Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Ors : 2010 (3) ALT 302. On the face of it, it is noticed by the Court that the impugned Notices issued to the Writ Petitioners would clearly speak about the nature of advertisement and also about the fact that the advertisement boards or name boards are illuminated. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the law decided in Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic and Ors. Vs. Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Ors would not come to the help of the Writ Petitioners. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that these Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit, inasmuch as the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned Orders. 5. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. 6. However, Writ Petitioners are granted seven (7) days’ time from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court to pay the entire 5 amount, failing which, the Official Respondents are free to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:22.04.2026 Vns