Chilakala Veeravenkata Satya Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chilakala Veeravenkata Satya Suresh, S/o Chandra Shekar Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o 7-2-7-21, Near VijayaTakis, Nehru Nagar, Dhone, Kurnool District.

¶10

ChilakalaVeeramani,, S/o Chandra Shekar Rao, Aged about 45 years R/o 1-1-1-11, Near Vijaya Takis, Nehru Nagar, Dhone., Kurnool District.

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Corporation limited APSPDCL, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Kcsavayagunta besides Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam, Tiruchanuru Road, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, APSPDCL, Electrical Sub Station, Kothapeta, Dhone, Nandayal District (erstwhile Kurnool District.)

¶16

The Assistant Engineer Rural APSPDCL, Near RTC Bus Stand, Dhone, Nandayal District ( erstwhile Kurnool District.).

¶17

The Deputy Engineer, APSPDCE Near RTC Bus Stand, Dhone, Nandayal District ( erstwhile Kurnool District.)

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.Ayesha Azma S Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Energy Mr.Venkata Rama Rao Kota Standing Counsel for APSPDCL

¶20

2

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition, in short, is inaction of the Authorities concerned in considering the representation dated 01.12.2023 (Ex.P.1) of the petitioners to remove the electrical pole in the petitioners’ land of an extent of Acs.2.04 cents in Survey No.304A of Malkapuram Revenue Village, Dhone Mandal.

¶23

Though Mr.Shaik Asif, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to advance arguments with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, to which a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.5, this Court deems it not necessary to go into the merits or otherwise of the matter, more particularly in the light of the relief sought for in the writ petition.

¶24

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that the respondent No.5 shall pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 01.12.2023. as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners under proper acknowledgement. Needless to observe that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.5, he may work out his remedies in accordance with Law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J

¶26

January 27, 2026. vasu

Chilakala Veeravenkata Satya Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilakala Veeravenkata Satya Suresh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G Anjamma, Vs G Krishnamoorthy

Akshaya Filing Station Vs the State of Ap

Aparna Yalamanchili Vs State of Ap

M/s. Indu Infra Reality Private Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Ltd.

Kaveri Enterprises Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Neelkanth Granites, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh