Devarapu Pawan Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010305272023

¶2

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

¶3

[3483]

¶4

WP(PIL) NO: 89/2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

1.^{DEVARAPU PAWAN, S/O, LATE RAMA MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48,} BUSINESS, FLAT NO, 1217, TEAK BLOCK, RAIN TREE PARK, DWARAKA KRISHNA, OPP. NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NUMBUR, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH MOBILE NO. 9059059595, EMAIL ID. PAWAN.DEVARAPU@,GMAIL.COM AADHAR NO. 234969293928, PAN CARD NO. AGYPD3694D, BANK A/C NO. 081410100029455, ANDHRA BANK, KOTHAPETA BRANCH, GUNTUR.

¶7

2.^{SIRIPURAPU VENKATA SREEDHAR,, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED} 50 YEARS, STATE PRESIDENT OF PRAJA CHAITANYA VEDIKA, R/O. D.NO. 5- 37-76, 4/9 BRODIPET, OPP.TANISHQ JEWELLARY, GUNTUR-522002, MOBILE NO. 9493942113, E-MAIL ID:[email protected], AADHAR CARD NO. 979942432001, BANK A/C NO. 001510100075302, ANDHRA BANK, ARUNDEL PET BRANCH, GUNTUR.

¶8

...PETITIONER(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OPP. GANDHI PARK, GUNTUR, A.P-522003.

¶12

THE CITY PLANNER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR

¶15

THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

issue a Writ, Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of Respondents in constructing the proposed Gym building in NTR Stadium, Guntur without obtaining sanctioned plan and without leaving setbacks as unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal and contrary to provisions of APCRDA Act, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, The Andhra Pradesh Building Rules 2017 (GOMS No. 119, MA and UD Dept. Dated 28-03-2017) and consequently direct the respondents not to construct the proposed Gym building in the NTR Stadium, Guntur without obtaining sanctioned plan and to construct building leaving proper setbacks and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 of unauthorized construction of proposed Gym building in NTR Stadium, Guntur and pass

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

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 Direct the respondents to demolish the structure to an extent to be left for setbacks for G+2 commercial buildings and pass

¶22

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶23

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 direct the respondents to collect crores of public money spent/ budgeted on constructing illegal G+2 building from the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 who initiated the construction, sanctioned the budget and are directly responsible for wastage of crores of rupees of public fund apart from causing inconvenience to the general public and deposit into treasury and pass

¶24

IA NO: 4 OF 2023

¶25

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 implead the Proposed Respondents as a Respondents No. 7 to 15 in the present Writ Petition(PIL) and pass

¶26

IA NO: 5 OF 2023

¶27

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 pass an order by directing the Official Respondent authorities to stay the construction of G+2 multi storied building in the N.T.R. Municipal Corporation Stadium and further not to open the said G+2 building in the N.T.R. Municipal Corporation Stadium, Guntur City, until disposal of the above W.P.(PIL) and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.C.PANINI SOMAYAJI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

¶32

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶33

3.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )

¶34

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶35

DATE: 02.07.2025.

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

¶38

The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed highlighting the construction of proposed Gym building in NTR Stadium, Guntur without obtaining sanctioned plan and without leaving setbacks.

¶39

Heard Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the

¶41

affidavit would contend that, the respondents are constructing proposed Gym

¶42

building by flouting the rules for gaining maximum advantage ignoring the inconvenience to the general public going to the NTR stadium, leaving their vehicles on the roads adding more inconvenience to the traffic. In view of the same prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶43

4. On the other hand, Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader on counter submitted that the Gym was already completed and is functioning at NTR stadium sports complex. The entire ground floor admeasuring 312 Sq.mts is earmarked as parking space catering the needs of the public who go frequently to the sports complex without hindrance to the traffic. She further submitted that, the present gym building has not compromised or jeopardized with the parking provision that was earlier available for the NTR Sports Complex, as alleged by the petitioner. As such, prayed to close the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

¶44

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.

¶45

6. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are constructing proposed Gym causing inconvenience to the general public going to the NTR stadium sports complex. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents would reveal that the Gym has already been constructed and is functioning. The photographs would further reveal that there is sufficient parking provision available for the general public who go frequently to the NTR stadium sports complex without hindrance to the traffic. In view of the same, there remains nothing for adjudication and the Public Interest Litigation is liable to the closed.

¶46

Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation ( PIL) is closed . No costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

¶50

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J

¶51

BRS

Devarapu Pawan v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarapu Pawan v. the State of Ap

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

The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vs Mr.Ch.Vijaya Mohan

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devastanam, Vizag Vs Smt. Peethala Papayamma, Visakhapatnam & Another

Taalala Naga Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Local Governments Chamber Vs Union of India

B Doraswamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Seelam Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh