Disposed¶34

Sri Rama Seva Samajam(Yadava) v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2025WP/15226/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple renovation obstruction; private Ramalayam Golla Kancharlapalem Visakhapatnam; Yadava samajam petitioner; mandamus Article 226; Articles 14 and 21 violation; Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation impleaded; BPS Scheme object; Section 151 CPC interim application; renovation works completed during pendency; writ disposed, no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Justice Harinath.N; WRIT PETITION NO: 15226/2019; decided 05.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of on recording that renovation works stood completed, with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. The legality of the alleged obstruction was not adjudicated. ¶34

Sri Rama Seva Samajam(Yadava) Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in obstructing the modifications of the construction of the Ramalayam at Golla Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam, a private temple whose level is 8 feet lower than the road level, was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, warranting a writ of mandamus.

¶16

Court's answer

Recording the submissions of counsel for both sides and taking note of the completion of the renovation works, the Court held that no further orders were required in the writ petition.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶34

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 15226 of 2019 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Harinath.N, J., 05.11.2025): A registered Yadava samajam sought a mandamus under Article 226 against the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for obstructing modifications/renovation of its private Ramalayam at Golla Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam, pleading that the temple level lay 8 feet below road level and that the obstruction violated Articles 14 and 21, principles of natural justice and the object of the BPS Scheme; an interim application under Section 151 CPC was also filed. During pendency the petitioner completed the works and managed the temple without disturbance, a fact conceded on instructions by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, who also contended the Corporation had been impleaded without reason. Recording both sets of submissions and noting completion of the renovation works, the Court found no further orders necessary, disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions. No finding was rendered on the legality or otherwise of the alleged obstruction.

¶1

APHC010323682019

¶2

[3457]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESD A Y, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 15226/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI RAMA SEVA S A MAJAM(YADAVA), REG NO. 262/77, GOLLA KARCHARLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP., BY ITS P R ESIDENT PALLA SATYANARA Y ANA S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED 5 6 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R /O D.NO.3-3/3, DURGA NAGAR, GOLLA KANCHARLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-8.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS P RINCIPAL SECRETARY, ( M UNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVE L OPMENT DEPARTMENT) S ECRETARIAT BUILDING, VEL A GAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNT U R, AP.

¶14

THE VISAKHAPATN A M MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RE P ., BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VI S AKHAPATNAM, A.P.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayin g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ orde r or direction more particularly one in t h e nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in obst r ucting the modifications of the construction of the Ramalayam situate d in Golla Kancharlapalem, Visakha p atnam, which is a private templ e and the modifications are just and necessary as the temple level is 8 feet lower than the road level, where in a n d whereby is illegal, arbitrary and unc o nstitutional and violative Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative

¶17

¶18

Of Principles of Natural Justice, and contrary to the object of the BPS Scheme and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd responden and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

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 not to interfere with the modifications of the temple construction of Ramalayam situated in Golla Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal or the above writ petition and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

¶25

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

ORDER:-

¶29

The petitioner filed the present writ petition, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent in obstructing the modifications and renovation works of a Temple.

¶30

It is submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has completed the modifications for the Temple and carried out the required works. It is also submitted that the petitioner is now managing the affairs of the Temple without causing any disturbance to anyone.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner has completed the renovation works, including laying slabs for the floor, and that, as of now, the petitioner is peacefully managing the Temple. It is also stated that the 2^nd respondent has been impleaded without any rhyme or reason.

¶32

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, and taking note of the completion of the renovation works, no further orders are required in this writ petition.

¶34