Disposed

Gundala Sarojini v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Apr 2024WP/8102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the removal of their dry fish and vegetable shops by respondent authorities without following statutory eviction procedures. The High Court, accepting that authorities intended to act legally, disposed of the petition directing them not to interfere with the shops except in accordance with due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to interfere with the petitioners' subject shops except under the due process of law.

Gundala Sarojini Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

'V
<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

F A
V
o
lo -o

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 8102 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Gundala Sarojini, C/o Gundala Penchalaiah, aged about 46 years, R/at Door No. 7-39, Near Mary Mata Temple, Poranki, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh-521137.

¶12

ChalamalaSudhakararao, S/o Rammohan, aged about^{45Years,7-79,} Poranki Rural, Poranki, Krishna Dist, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration, Urban Development Department, Andhra^Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist.

¶16

The YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner,^YSR Tadigadapa MunicipalityKrishna Dist at Machilipatnam,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, G 5 & 6, Sector, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110075.

¶18

The Project Implementation Unit -Vijayawada, Plot No. 74, Vanamali Building, Beside N.A.C. KalyanaVedika, Commercial Taxes Colony, Gurunanak Nagar Road,Vijayawada -520 008.

¶19

The Station House Officer, Tadigadapa Police Station,^{KrishnaDistat} Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶22

be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly,^{oneinthenature} of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in making efforts for removal of Dry fish shop and Vegetable^situated at Revenue Ward 3 Neat Marymata Temple, Poranki, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Krishna Dist, Andhra Pradesh without following the procedure for eviction of a street vendor in Rule 9 and 10 envisaged in GO MS No. 137 dated 31.03.2017 & Sec 12 of the Street Vendors (Protection^{OfLivelihoodAnd} Regulation Of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles^{14,15,16,19,21} and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take or initiative any coercive steeps against the petitioners dry fish shop situated at Revenue Ward 3 Neat Marymata Temple, Porapki, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Krishna Dist, Andhra Pradesh except due procedure established by the law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

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 not to remove any shop (Dry fish Shop & Vegetable) situated at Revenue Ward 3 Neat Marymata Temple, Poranki, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Krishna Dist, Andhra Pradesh without following the procedure established by law.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION^&

¶26

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY,^SCFOR

¶28

MUNC & MUNC CORPORATION

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. SODUM ANVESHA,^NHAI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S.S.VARMA, SC^FORNHAI Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

APHC010161882024

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶34

AT AMARAVATI

¶35

[3332]

¶36

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO: 8102/2024

¶41

Between:

¶42

Gundala Sarojini and Others

¶43

...PETITIONER(S)

¶44

AND

¶45

The State Of Ap and Others

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶48

1.JADASRAVAN KUMAR

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP

¶51

2.GP FOR HOME

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

The short grievance of the petitioners is that the^{authoritiesaremaking} efforts to remove the petitioners dry fish and vegetable shop^situatedat Revenue Ward 3 near Marymata Temple, PorankI, YSR Tadigadapa Muncipality, Krishna District without following due process of law.

¶55

¶56

Heard Sri Jada sravan kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and M/s Chowdary and Chowdary Associates represented by Ms Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3'’'^ respondent-NHAI.

¶57

When the matter is taken up for consideration today. learned counsel appearing for NHAI on instructions submitted that, the petitioners subject shops are Within the purview of the NHAI and the authorities are contemplating to take steps in accordance with law and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶58

To the said submission, learned counsel for petitioner requested to record the instructions and prayed to dispose of the writ petition. 5. Taking the submissions made by both the learned counsel into consideration. as the authorities have an intention to take steps in accordance with law, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counter. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶59

The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioners subject shops except under due process of law.

¶60

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶61

Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

To.

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

Sd/- S.SRINIVAS PRASAD assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER

¶65

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration , Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶66

The Commissioner, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Commissioner,^YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Krishna Dist at Machilipatnam,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶67

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, G 5 & 6, Sector, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110075.

¶68

The Project Implementation Unit -Vijayawada, Plot No. 74, Vanamali Building, Beside N.A.C. KalyanaVedika, Commercial Taxes Colony, Gurunanak Nagar Road, Vijayawada -520 008.

¶69

The Station House Officer, Tadigadapa Police Station, Krishna Dist at Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶70

One CC to Sri. Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

Two CCs to GP Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶72

One CC to Ms.Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to Sri M.Manohar Reddy, SC for Municipal & Municipal Corporation. [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to Sri.S.S.Varma, SC for NHAI. [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶76

Three CD Copies. gi

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8102 of 2024

( 6Co^\c^

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Gundala Sarojini v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundala Sarojini v. the State of Ap

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

Pathalavath Bala Naik Vs the State of Ap

Srikakulapu Srinivasarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudumuri Venkata Bhaskar Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sri Sri Veeranjaneeya Swamy Baji Junction Residents Welfare Association Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh

M Srihari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S.Bvg India Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh