A writ petition seeking mandamus to direct municipal authorities to act against illegal constructions was dismissed as the issue was already resolved by prior orders and the demolition of the deviating portion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16823 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner, who said to be the owner of D.No.53-2313/1, Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatanam District has approached this Court with the complaint that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not taking any action against the respondents Nos.4 to 6 despite the complaint being filed about the illegal constructions being carried out by the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioner states that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 after having issued a notice under Section-636 to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to remove the illegal constructions, have not taken any further steps and sought a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to act in accordance with the notice dated 05.02.2022 under Section-636 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 [for the short “the Municipal Corporation Act”.
2
RRR,J W.P.No. 16823 of 2022
respondent Nos.4 to 6 and as long as the said constructions are in accordance with the building permission granted to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and that it would be open to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take appropriate action if there is any construction made by the respondent Nos.4 to 6, in deviation of the sanctioned building plan.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
15.07.2022 BSM
3
RRR,J W.P.No. 16823 of 2022
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16823 of 2022
15.07.2022
BSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the relief sought in the writ petition has already been obtained by the respondent authorities' earlier actions.
What is the appropriate disposition of the present writ petition given the prior execution of the earlier order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
OWNER OF D.No.53-2313/1, Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatanam District
RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3
RESPONDENTS NOS.4 TO 6
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
