Writ petition filed seeking quashing of a municipal plan denial and seeking construction permissions, which was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of representation by the petitioners.
None granted due to dismissal for non-prosecution.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATk
(Special Original Jurisdiction) \
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY > .
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR v
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPAtT
WRIT PETITION NO: 11682 OF 20x13-^
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 or order more especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records psrtdfiing to the Endorsement in v-' Roc.No.296/A12013 /G1, Dated 23.3.2013, issued by the respondent
refusing the approval of plan for construction of a house in D No. 29-1699 in S.No. 399/1A, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda, Guntur Dist. as illegal arbitrary, capricious and quash the same and against the documents placed before the respondent which includes the orders passed by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in several writ petitions from time to time, and consequentially suspend the Endorsement Roc.No.296/A/2 013 /G1, Dated 23.3.2013, issued by the respondent refusing the approval of plan for construction of a house in D No. 29-1699 in S.N0.399/1A, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary. capricious and against the documents placed before the respondent which includes the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in several writ petitions from time to time and consequentiallydirectthe respondent to collect L.R.S. charges for the land in question and grant permission for construction of a house in D.No.29-1699 in S.No.399/1 A, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda, Guntur District.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fWPMP. NO: 14467 OF 2013)
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 suspend the Endorsement Roc. No.296/A/2013 /G1 Dated 23.3.2013, issued by the respondent refusing the approval of plan for construction of a house in D No.29-1699 in S.N0.399/IA, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda, Guntur Dist., as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and against the documents placed before the respondent which includes the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in several writ petitions from time to time.
LA. NO: 2 OF 2013fWPMP. NO: 14468 OF 201.^)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be
r
pleased to direct the respondent to collect L.R.S. charges for the land in question and grant permission for construction of a house in D.No.29-1699 in S.N0.399/IA, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda, GunturDistrict.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA v /
Counsel for the Respondent: SHANTHI NEELAM
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010512392013
C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3332]
MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11682/2013
Between:
P Krishna Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Municipal Commissioner ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondent:
1.99/B D MAHESWARA REDDY
2.SHANTHI NEELAM
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Though the matter is listed under the caption For Dismissal”, today also there is no representation onbehalfofthe petitioners. It appears that, the petitioners have no interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand
closed.
Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANt REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE onIdfficer
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/05/2024
ORDER
WP.No.11682of2013
^ %
X 18 FEB 21)25 Hi
Curreni Section
DISMISSING THE W.P FOR NON-PROSECUTION
WITHOUT COSTS
P.Krishna Reddy
The Municipal Commissioner
Ravi CheemalapatI
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
