Disposed¶31

K. Rathnam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2025WP/24971/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

cell tower; mobile tower construction; Nellore; NGO Colony; B.V.Nagar; Dr.No.25-13-439; Sy.No.2056; Article 226; Article 19; Article 21; writ of mandamus; representations dated 21.06.2016; construction completed long back; G.O.Ms.No.2 Information Technology Electronics & Communications Department (Communications Wing) dated 26.05.2023; writ disposed without adjudication; remedies left open; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Nyapathy Vijay, J.; 07.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies as per G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 26.05.2023, if so advised; no order as to costs. ¶31

K. Rathnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies as per G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 26.05.2023, if so advised; no order as to costs.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of Respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioners' representations dated 21.06.2016 for stopping construction of the cell tower atop the three-storied building at Dr.No.25-13-439, Sy.No.2056, NGO Colony, B.V.Nagar, Nellore was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶28

Court's answer

On the submission of learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 that the cell tower construction stood completed long back, the Court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the legality of the respondents' inaction.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

It was left 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.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (W.P. No. 24971 of 2016; the order heading prints 2014) by K. Rathnam and Others seeking a writ of mandamus to declare illegal and arbitrary the inaction of Respondents 3 and 4 in not considering representations dated 21.06.2016 to stop construction of a cell tower atop a three-storied building at Dr.No.25-13-439, Sy.No.2056, NGO Colony, B.V.Nagar, Nellore, alleging violation of Articles 19 and 21, and to direct removal of the tower from the 5th respondent's building. Learned counsel for Respondents 6 and 7 submitted that the construction of the cell tower was completed long back. Recording that submission, Nyapathy Vijay, J. disposed of the writ petition (order dated 07.04.2025), 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; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. The legality issue was not adjudicated.

¶1

APHC010009652016

¶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: 24971 OF 2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

K. Rathnam, and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶19

2.ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO

¶20

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

¶21

4.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP)

¶22

5.E MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 24971 OF 2014

¶25

ORDER :

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶27

seeking the following relief:

¶28

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3^rd and 4^th respondent authorities who are not in a position to consider the representations dated 21.06 2016 for to stop the construction of Cell Tower at top of 3 storied building in Dr.No.25-13-439, Sy.No.2056, NGO Colony, B.V.Nagar, Nellore, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to stop the construction and to remove the cell tower from the 5^th respondent building and pass such other orders....”

¶29

Learned counsel for the Respondents No.6 and 7 would submit that

¶30

the construction of Cell Towner is completed long back.

¶31

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.

¶32

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶33

Date: 07.04.2025 KK

K. Rathnam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rathnam, v. The State 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. Ramprasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sri.Ambati Raghavendra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh