Dismissed¶52

Gv Laxmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2025WP/3143/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal of writ petition challenging merger of Padala village (Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District) into Tadepalligudem Municipality by G.O.Ms No. 222 and G.O.Ms No. 356 dated 31-12-2019 and redivision of wards under G.O.Ms No. 76 dated 27-01-2020; no merits decided; interim orders deemed vacated; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Justice Ravi Cheemalapati; Article 226; Padala Gram Panchayat; Tadepalligudem Municipality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, there being no representation for the petitioner when the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' and on 29.08.2025 and 10.12.2025. ¶52

Gv Laxmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether G.O.Ms No. 222 (PR&RD, dated 31-12-2019) cancelling Padala village, G.O.Ms No. 356 (MAUD, dated 31-12-2019) merging Padala village with Tadepalligudem Municipality, and the consequential ward division under G.O.Ms No. 76 (MAUD, dated 27-01-2020) are illegal, unjust and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, there being no representation for the petitioner when the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' and on 29.08.2025 and 10.12.2025.

¶52

Key takeaways

The repeated absence of representation indicated that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case.ratio¶50
Interim order(s), if any, operating in the writ petition are deemed to have been vacated upon the dismissal.ratio¶52
There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2020 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Ravi Cheemalapati J., 29.12.2025) — Petition under Article 226 by five former elected representatives of Padala Village (Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District) challenging G.O.Ms No. 222 PR&RD (E and R) dated 31-12-2019 cancelling Padala village, G.O.Ms No. 356 MAUD dated 31-12-2019 merging Padala village with Tadepalligudem Municipality, and the consequential division of wards (35 to 40) under G.O.Ms No. 76 MAUD (G2) dated 27-01-2020, alleging violation of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Declaration/De-notification/Constitution of Villages Rules 2007, the A.P. Municipalities Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas Rules 2015, the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the A.P. Municipalities Act and Articles 14 and 21 — HELD: writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no representation despite posting under the caption 'for dismissal' and on 29.08.2025 and 10.12.2025; interim order(s), if any, deemed vacated; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. The legality of the G.O.s was not adjudicated.

¶1

APHC010052922020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3332]

¶5

MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3143/2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

GV LAXMI,, W/O RAMBABU, FEMALE, AGE. 57 YEARS, EX-SARPANCH ,PADALA VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, W G. DIST.

¶11

SVG RAJA BABU,, S/O MALE, AGE. 54 YEARS,EXVICEPRESIDENT, PADALA VILLAGE TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, W G. DIST.

¶12

KAMISETTI JAYA LAXMI,, W/O SATYANARAYANA FEMALE, AGE. 55 YEARS, MPTC, PADALA VILLAGE TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, W G. DIST

¶13

A SATYANARAYANA,, S/O BURAYYA, MALE, AGE. 52 YEARS, EX-WARD MEMBER, PADALA VILLAGE TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, W G. DIST

¶14

VVV SATYANARAYANA,, S/O VEERA SWAMV MALE, AGE. 60 YEARS, EX-WARD MEMBER, PADALA VILLAGE TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, W G. DIST.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND R D DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶19

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.A. AND U.D. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (DMA), GUNTUR

¶21

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

¶22

THE TADEPALLIGUDEM MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶23

THE PADALA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER PADALA (V) TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 toto issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MEndamus declaring the G.O.Ms No. 222 Panchayat and Rural Develo-pment Department (E andR) dated 31-12-2019 cancelling Padala village and G.O.Ms No. 356 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dated 31-12-2019 Padala village merging with Tadepalligudem Municipality and in consequent acts in division of Wards under. G.O.Ms No. 76 Municipal Administration and Urban Development 'G2) Department Dated 27-01-2020 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, Violate of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Declaration/De-notification/Constitution of Villages

¶26

¶27

Rules 2007, A.P Municipalities Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into /from the inclusion of Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats Rules 2015, provisions of A P Panchayat Raj Act and A P Municipalities Act and the petitioners rights guaranteed under Arts 14 and Art 21 of the Constitution of India and coisequently set aside G.O.Ms No. 222 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (EandR) Department dated 31-12-2019 and G.O.Ms No 356 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) dated 31-12-2019 Ind pass

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶29

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 to Stay all further proceedings consequent to rasing of 35 wards to 40 ward divisions of Tadepalligudem Municipality of West Godavari District under G.O.Ms No. 76 Municipal Administration and Urban Develcpment (G2) Department Dated 27-01-202.0 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶30

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶31

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 to Suspend G.O.Ms No. 356 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dated 3112-2019 merging Padala village in to Tadepalligudem Municipality of West Godavari District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶32

IA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶33

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 to Suspend G.O.Ms No. 222 Panchayat and Rural Development Department (E and R) dated 31-12-2019 cancelling Padala village by ir clusion in to

¶34

¶35

Tadepalligudem Municipality of West Godavari district pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶36

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶37

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 pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/respondent No.6 in WP.No.3143 of 2020 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶39

1.DASAKA MURALI KRISHNA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶42

2.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

¶43

3.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶44

4.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶45

5.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶46

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶47

In spite of posting the matter under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶48

On earlier occasions also i.e., on 29.08.2025 and 10.12.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. It

¶49

¶50

shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting with the

¶51

case.

¶52

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition

¶54

shall stand closed.

¶55

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 29.12.2025 ANS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI