Dismissed

Vinukonda Jaya v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jun 2023WP/14075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC concerning legal action against a petitioner's structure, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dismissed the petition as withdrawn without costs by order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Permission granted for withdrawal. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Vinukonda Jaya Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT^®^^^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) 7^-if- MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE I 7;

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’RLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 14075 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vinukonda Jaya, W/o. Vinukonda Bramesh Kumar, aged about 38 years Hindu, House wife. Tea Stall business Residing at D. No. 8-1, Chepala Kundilu, Poranki.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

2. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by it? Commissioner, Vijayawada.

¶12

The District Collector, Vijayawada, NTR District. 4. The Tasildhar, Central Mandal, Vijayawada.

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action qf the respondents 1 to 4 as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary, without any authority of law and Offends Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner structure which in situated at D. Nq. 17-16-20, qppqsite Tamil Schqol, CK Reddy read. Baptist Nagar, Pezzqnipeta, Vijayawada-520003 in any manner whatsqever including demqiition.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 not to interfere with the structure of the petitioner situated at D. No. 17-16-20, opposite Tamil School, CK Reddy road. Baptist Nagar, Pezzonipeta, Vijayawada-520003 in any manner whatsoever including demolition by using force disposal of the main writ petition.

¶16

a J

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANGISETTI UMA SANKAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3,4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M. MANOHAR REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MQHAN WRIT PETITION No. 14075 of 2023 Vinukonda Jaya W/o. Vinukonda Rramesh Kumar, aged aboqt 38 years Hindu, House Wife, Tea Stall business R/o.D-No.S-1, Chepala Kundilu, Poranki. Petitioner Versus

¶24

Petitioner

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration 85 Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Quntur District and 3 others.

¶26

....Respondents

¶27

ORDER;

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of

¶29

this Court to withdraw this writ petition.

¶30

eh 2. Permission is accorded. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Interim orders, if any, deemed to have been, vacated. There shall

¶31

be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any.

¶33

shall stand closed.

¶34

SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO
ASSISTANT^EGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTI N OFFICER
To,
1. OneCCto SRI. Gangisetti Uma Sankar Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev .High Court Of Andhra
Pradesh. [OUT]
3. Two CCs to QP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
4. One CC to Sri M. Manohar Reddy, Muncipal Admn Urban Dev [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies.
Krk VIA
AG

■]

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/06/2023

ORDER

WP.No.14075 of 2023

¶40

1^ . e H SEP 2K3
Currentu i Sectiona uu

¶41

DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vinukonda Jaya v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinukonda Jaya v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

K. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppu Tirupataiah Vs the State of Ap

MD Avez Baig Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahendra Pushpa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neelam Santosh Ranganath Vs the State of Ap