Kilari Hariprasad Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kilari Hariprasad Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No merits adjudication; proceedings closed after directing the Commissioner, VMRDA, to pass appropriate orders within two weeks, with liberty reserved to any aggrieved party to challenge any adverse final order in appropriate proceedings; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, following the speaking order dated 08.12.2025 of the Metropolitan Commissioner, the approval already granted by the VMRDA in favour of respondent No.4 stands upheld or needs to be modified.

Court's answer

This Court recorded that it was not informed how the order of the Metropolitan Commissioner dated 08.12.2025 impacts the approval already granted by the VMRDA in favour of respondent No.4, and was unsure whether that approval is upheld or needs to be modified; it therefore deferred the substantive determination rather than adjudicating the point itself.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the Commissioner may pass appropriate orders (clarifying the status of the approval) within two (2) weeks.

Key takeaways

Any party aggrieved of the order ultimately passed is at liberty to challenge it, if adverse to their interest, in appropriate proceedings.ratio¶3
The present writ appeal proceedings shall stand closed, with no costs.ratio¶4
Connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall likewise stand closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati — W.A.No.1145 of 2025 (Kilari Hariprasad and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others), Coram: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ and Challa Gunaranjan, J; 23.12.2025. Pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 04.11.2025 requiring the Commissioner, VMRDA, to pass a speaking order on whether note (4) of subrule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017 was satisfied by the layout plan submitted for approval by the 4th respondent, a speaking order dated 08.12.2025 was passed by the Metropolitan Commissioner. The Court stated it could not determine whether the VMRDA approval already granted in favour of respondent No.4 was thereby upheld or required modification, and accordingly directed the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders within two (2) weeks, while preserving the liberty of any aggrieved party to challenge any adverse final order in appropriate proceedings. The writ appeal proceedings were then closed without costs, and connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also closed. No precedent cases are cited; no substantive legal point was adjudicated in this order.

APHC010572712025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-18 AT AMARAVATI [3552]

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1145 of 2025

Kilari Hariprasad and another

...Appellants

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

...Respondents

************** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. N. Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav Advocates for Respondents : Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. V. Surya Kiran Kumar; Mr. P. Rajkumar; Mr. A. S. C. Bose, Standing Counsel for Municipal Corps.; Mr. Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Standing Counsel for VUDA and MUDA; GP for MA & UD

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 23th December 2025

P C :

Pursuant to our order, dated 04.11.2025, whereby we had required the Commissioner, VMRDA, to pass a speaking order on whether note (4) of subrule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017, was satisfied by the layout plan, which was submitted for approval by the 4^th respondent, or not, a speaking order has been passed.

We, however, are not informed as to how the order passed by the

Metropolitan Commissioner, dated 08.12.2025, would impact the approval

2

HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1145 of 2025

already granted by the VMRDA in favour of respondent No.4. While a speaking order has been passed, we are not sure whether the approval already granted is upheld or the same needs to be modified.

The Commissioner may pass appropriate orders within two (2) weeks. Any party aggrieved of the order, which may ultimately be passed, to be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is adverse to their interest in any manner, in appropriate proceedings.

The present proceedings shall accordingly stand closed. No

costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

kbs

3

HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1145 of 2025

35

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

W.A.No.1145 of 2025

Dt: 23.12.2025

kbs