Disposed¶35

Vayugundia Karthik, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025WP/23273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vayugundia Karthik v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; W.P. No.23273 of 2025; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice Harinath.N; order dated 13.11.2025; unauthorized construction by respondents 5 and 6; inaction of authorities; speaking orders passed by 4th respondent; charge sheet returned with office objections; undertaking to resubmit charge sheet; confirmation order dated 12.09.2024; direction to 4th respondent to take further steps; writ petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to take further steps against the unauthorized construction; writ petition disposed of with no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, stand closed. ¶35

Vayugundia Karthik, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010459412025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3457]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION No:23273/2025

Between:

Vayugundia Karthik

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.Sri C SUBODH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

1.Ld. P RAJASEKHAR

¶18

2.Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶19

Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for R.4

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

-2-

¶22

W.P. No.23273 of 2025 Date of order:13.11.2025

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.23273 OF 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents regarding the unauthorized constructions made by respondents 5 and 6.

¶27

On 30.10.2025, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submits before this Court that the 4^th respondent has passed speaking orders and the said speaking order would address the grievance of the petitioner. The matter was adjourned for the petitioner to verify.

¶28

Today, there is no representation for respondents 5 and 6.

¶29

The learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent, on oral instructions, submits that the respondent authorities would take further steps against the unauthorized structure. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have filed a charge sheet before the competent court and that it was returned with some office objections. It is also submitted that the respondents would take steps to resubmit the charge sheet.

¶30