Dismissed

V.Jaya Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2019WP(PIL)/110/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the demolition of a 200-year-old court building was disposed of as the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication after the High Court directed authorities to explore constructing a new building without damaging the old structure.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs pending; petition disposed of as no cause survives for adjudication.

V.Jaya Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.110 of 2019

¶5

ORDER : (Per the Honourable Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)

¶6

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶7

by the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief:

¶8

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish by razing down more then 200 years old Majestic District Courts Builidng, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, which is a heritage building with a hoary past and having structural stability and life span of another hundred years and without there being any authentic report by the competent authority pertaining to its not having structural stability or about assumed dilapidated condition and to destroy greenery around the building situate in an extent of Ac.4.65 cents of land, for the purpose of construction of 15 Courts multi storied court complex as arbitrary, illegal, irrational and violative of Conservation of Heritage Buildings Laws and Environmental Laws and wasting of public money and pass such other order or orders….”

¶9

We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner; and, of Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned standing counsel for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent nos.2 & 7. We have perused the material record.

¶10

The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to demolition of 200 years old Majestic District Courts building, Chittoor.

¶11

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that after the institution of this writ petition, the High Court called for a report from Principal District Judge, Chittoor, through R & B Department as to the possibility to construct a new building without causing damage to the old Principal District Court building, Chittoor, and that therefore, the cause in the

¶12

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.(PIL)No.110 of 2019 11.09.2019

¶13

¶14

writ petition no longer survives for adjudication, in view of the said direction given by the High Court on the administrative side to the learned District Judge.

¶15

However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he filed two interlocutory applications, one for impleadment of necessary parties and the other for prohibiting of shifting of the Courts in the present Court complex, Chittoor, to the proposed building bearing door No.23-96 at Girvani Nagar, Industrial Estate, Chittoor, on the ground that the proposed building is in a dilapidated condition and is not suitable for functioning of the Courts and as the property is situated in an industrial area. With regard to this submission, we are of the view that the issues now being raised do not fall within the scope and ambit of the relief claimed in this writ petition and, therefore, the said contentions cannot be considered in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of since no cause survives for adjudication. No order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶18

_________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶19

_____________ J.UMA DEVI, J

¶20

11^th September, 2019

¶21

IKN

V.Jaya Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jaya Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sri Chakra Eden Greens Projects Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Sri Chakra Eden Greens Projects Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M.Venkata Reddy Vs Canara Bank

M/s International Paper Appm Ltd. 14-6-9 Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

U Umamaheswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. N.Ramavara Sairam, Vs The Canara Bank