Dismissed¶6

Palli Rama Krishna v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2025WP/15319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010305182025 | W.P.No.15319 of 2025 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati | Decided 10.09.2025 by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy | Disposition: dismissed, no costs. Keywords: locus standi; maintainability of writ petition; proposed action; writ of mandamus; private unaided degree college; guidelines of Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education; registered ownership document Ac.5.00 cents; building carpet area 12000 sq. feet; Article 226; Article 14. Holding: petitioners lacking direct and substantial interest or specific injury cannot maintain a writ petition against a merely proposed administrative action.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners do not possess the necessary locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. ¶4

Palli Rama Krishna Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners possess locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the merely proposed action of respondents 1 and 2. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The petitioners do not possess the necessary locus standi to maintain the present writ petition.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Where there is no action on the part of the official authorities, no person has locus standi to file a writ petition against a merely proposed action; locus standi is a well-established condition precedent for maintaining a writ petition, requiring demonstration of a direct and substantial interest and adverse effect on the petitioner's rights.

¶5

Key takeaways

Allegations resting on presumptions and assumptions, disclosing no specific injury or grievance to the petitioners, fail to establish any direct or substantial interest; on that failure the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 15319 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided on 10.09.2025 by K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. — Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal the proposed action of respondents 1 and 2 (State of AP, Higher Education Department; Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education) to accord permission to the 4th respondent-Society for establishment of a private unaided degree college, alleging contravention of the guidelines framed by the 2nd respondent for want of a registered ownership document to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents free from encumbrances and of a building with carpet area of 12000 sq. feet, and invoking Article 14. Held: the entire grievance rested on a merely proposed action incapable of primary proof; locus standi is a condition precedent for maintaining a writ petition, and the petitioners demonstrated neither a direct and substantial interest nor any specific injury, their allegations being founded on presumptions and assumptions. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on maintainability grounds, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

¶1

APHC010305182025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15319 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

PALLI RAMA KRISHNA, S/o Nookaraju, Aged about 42 years, R/o D.N0.8-IOA, Mallu Bhupalapatnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. 2. Palli Ammanna,, W/o Nookaraju, Aged about 74 years, R/o D.N0.8-IOA, Mallu Bhupalapatnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District.

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF AP, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, 3RD , 4TH and 5TH Floors, Neeladri Towers, Shram Nagar, Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, Rep. by its Secretary.

¶12

The Dean, College Development Council, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

Sri Venkata Sai Durga Devi Educational Society, Mallu Bhupalapatnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. Rep. by its Secretary, Ulabala Satti Babu.

¶14

Poosarla Chitti Babu, S/o Late Srirama murthy aged about 73 years, R/o D.No.49-7-10/3 Lalithanagar. Visakhapatnam

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

SRK, J W.P.No.15319 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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 a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 proposed to accord permission in favour of the 4th respondent-society for establishment of private unaided degree college contrary to the guidelines framed by the 2nd respondent, more particularly in the absence of registered ownership document to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents free from any encumbrances and in the absence of building with carpet area of 12000 Sft is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Article 14 and contrary to the guidelines for establishment of private unaided degree colleges framed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to accord permission in favour of the 4th respondent-society contrary to the guidelines framed by the 2nd respondent.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: VVN NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SANTHI CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents: K RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: GANGA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTULA

¶20

SRK, J W.P.No.15319 of 2025

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief.

¶24

“to issue a Writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 proposed to accord permission in favour of 4^th respondent - Society for establishment of private unaided degree College contrary to the guidelines framed by 2^nd respondent, more particularly in the absence of registered ownership document to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents free from any encumbrances and in the absence of building with carpet area of 12000 Sq. feet is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Article 14 and contrary to the guidelines for establishment of private unaided degree colleges framed by 2^nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to accord permission in favour of 4^th respondent - Society contrary to the guidelines framed by 2^nd respondent.”

¶25

2. Heard. Perused the record.

¶26

Grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that respondents 1 and 2 are proposing to accord permission in favour of 4^th respondent – Society for establishment of private unaided degree College, contrary to the guidelines framed by 2^nd

¶27

SRK, J W.P.No.15319 of 2025

¶28

¶29

respondent, more particularly in the absence of registered ownership document to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents free from all encumbrances and in the absence of any building with carpet area of 12000 sq. feet.

¶30

On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners do not possess the necessary locus standi to maintain the present Writ Petition.

¶31

In the present Writ Petition, the whole and sole grievance of the petitioners is based on the proposed action of respondents 1 and 2, which cannot be even primarily proved by any of the documents. When there is no action on the part of respondents 1 and 2, there should be no locus standi for any person, much less the petitioners herein, to file a Writ Petition. It is a wellestablished principle of law that locus standi is a condition precedent for maintaining a Writ Petition. The petitioners must demonstrate that they have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and that the rights of the petitioners would be adversely affected by the alleged proposed action of any official authority. The petitioners have failed to show any personal or legal interest which has been infringed upon. The allegations in the petition are based on presumptions and assumptions and do not disclose any specific injury or grievance to be suffered by the petitioners. Since the petitioners have failed to establish any direct or substantial interest or injury, the

¶32

SRK, J W.P.No.15319 of 2025

¶33

¶34

Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35