Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao v. Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WA/712/2026

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 712 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-16 [3584] Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao and others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 17th

Disposed 3 months after registration.

Filed as

DISPOSED OF NO COSTS2026

Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao Vs Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010295402026

¶2

Bench Sr.No:-16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3584] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO: 712 of 2026

¶4

Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao and others Vs.

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao and others

¶7

...Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶10

DATE : 17th September 2026

¶11

Present:

¶12

Advocate for Appellants: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM, Ld.SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR MS.VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI

¶13

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MALISETTI VENKATA SIVA TEJA, GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR HOME, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra, S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

¶16

Present intra-Court Appeal assails the order, dated 04.05.2026,

¶17

passed in W.P. No.7082 of 2026, by which learned Single Judge

¶18

¶19

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.712 of 2026

¶20

disposed the writ petition with a direction to 4^th respondent - District Collector to take necessary action to remove the statue.

¶21

2. 1^st respondent herein filed writ petition questioning the inaction of respondents in removing illegal statue of late Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao, constructed in middle of roadway at Puligadda Toll Plaza on the Avanigadda–Repalle Road of NH-216, to be illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the interim order granted in I.A.No.10/2022 in SLP (C)No.8915/2006, dated 18.01.2013, by Hon’ble Apex Court and G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Road-I) Department, dated 18.02.2013, and consequently, to direct the respondents to remove the same.

¶22

3. 1^st respondent specifically pleaded that the statue was constructed without any permission, and further that it has become a threat to public safety, causing disruption to toll plaza operations, besides creating public nuisance and being prone to accidents. Further, despite making several representations to concerned authorities, no action was forthcoming to remove the same. In those circumstances, writ petition was preferred.

¶23

4. It was contended before learned Single Judge that the statue was erected much prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 18.02.2013, and that G.O.Ms. No.55, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R-1)

¶24

¶25

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.712 of 2026

¶26

Department, dated 08.04.2003, would apply, therefore, the concerned respondent authorities should have acted in accordance with the same, reviewed the complaints, and accordingly taken steps for removal of the statue.

¶27

5. In that background, learned Single Judge disposed writ petition at admission stage, directing 4^th respondent-District Collector to take necessary steps for removal of the statue, of course, by following the due process of law.

¶28

6. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for Ms.Varshitha Kaligineedi, learned counsel for appellants and Mr.M.Venkata Siva Teja, learned counsel for 1^st respondent/writ petitioner.

¶29

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants contended that the statue was erected by the followers of late Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao, that without impleading them as party respondents and hearing their version, the writ petition was instituted, and accordingly, disposed by directing removal of the statue, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the statue was erected in the year 2009, much before issuance of G.O.Ms. No.18, dated 18.02.2013, and further that it was not causing any

¶30

¶31

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.712 of 2026

¶32

hindrance to public or obstructing the flow of traffic, therefore, there is no requirement to remove or shift the same.

¶33

8. Learned counsel for 1^st respondent-writ petitioner tried to sustain the impugned order by contending that appellants have no locus standi , and at any rate, the direction issued was to the District Collector to act in accordance with law; therefore, they can as well agitate before the District Collector, thus, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

9. It is the pleaded case of appellants that, in specific 3^rd appellant is stated to be then Sarpanch of Puligadda Village at the time when Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao Varadhi, a bridge constructed across the Krishna River, was inaugurated. It is in recognition of said late Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao, who was instrumental in formation of aforesaid bridge, the same was named after him, and on the said occasion, the statue was installed, which is very well known to all the people residing in the vicinity. Even the plaque displayed on the statue also clearly depicts the names of persons who were instrumental and participated on the said occasion. Therefore, they do have interest and locus standi in the present matter.

¶35

10. After having gone through the record and considering the facts

¶36

and circumstances of the case, since the appellants were not made parties in the writ petition, who definitely have a stake, we deem it

¶37

¶38

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.712 of 2026

¶39

appropriate to set aside the order of learned Single Judge and remand the writ petition for fresh consideration. Appellants shall file appropriate application for impleadment within two weeks from today.

¶40

11. Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, and the writ petition is remanded to learned Single Judge, for deciding the matter afresh on merits, after hearing writ petitioners as well as the appellants herein. No order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶43

Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao v. Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Mandali Venkata Seshagiri Rao v. Bade Venkata Seshagiri Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases