Disposed¶28

M.S. Dileep Kumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2025WP/23467/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cell phone tower residential locality; writ of mandamus; Article 226; inaction of municipal/Government authorities; respondents 4 and 5; S.Sadlapalli Village; Hindupur Municipal limits; Anantapur District; construction completed; G.O.Ms.No.2 IT E&C Department (Communications Wing) dated 26.05.2023; remedies left open; disposed; no costs; APHC010110662014; W.P. 23467 of 2014; Nyapathy Vijay, J; decided 07.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies under G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 26.05.2023, if so advised; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed. ¶28

M.S. Dileep Kumar Reddy Vs The Government of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010110662014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 23467 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.S. Dileep Kumar Reddy and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.P HEMACHANDRA

¶19

2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

¶20

3.N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23467 OF 2014

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶25

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not taking action against respondents No.4 and 5 in stopping erection of cell phone tower as well as make it operational on the site of 4^th respondent in midst of residential locality in S.Sadlapalli Village of Hindupur Municipal limits Anantapur District inspite of petitioners representation, inspite of repeated representations as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate action to stop construction as well as making operational cell tower on the site of 4^th respondent in midst of residential locality in S Sadlapalli Village of Hindupur Municipal limits Anantapur District and pass such other orders....”

¶26

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 would submit that the

¶27

construction of Cell Towner is completed long back.

¶28

While recording the said submission, this Writ Petition, is therefore, disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies as per G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology, Electronics & Communications Department (Communications Wing) dated 26.05.2023 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, if so, advised. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶30

Date: 07.04.2025

¶31

M.S. Dileep Kumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Dileep Kumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ramachandrea Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Pragyna Grammer School Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Prasanna Laxmi, W/o.Kancharla Manikya Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Rathnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramprasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.Ambati Raghavendra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh