Dismissed¶49

Muthavarapu Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2026WP/15694/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; W.P. Nos. 15694 & 15711 of 2026 dismissed as withdrawn (oral common order, 10.07.2026, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda); development charges demand notices dated 28.03.2026 & 07.04.2026; APCPDCL Vijayawada (Patamata, Gunadala, Ring Road, Kanuru sections); consequent Memos; withdrawal permission; parallel filings W.P. Nos. 18769 & 18771 of 2026; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; petitioners Muthavarapu Venkateswara Rao and Smt. P. Sabitha; counsel Singamsetty V.M. Sankar, GP for Energy, V V Satish.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petitions; dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶49

Muthavarapu Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010302352026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3329]

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 15694 AND 15711 OF 2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

MUTHAVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O M. SRINIVASA BABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O DR. NO. 29-19-68, DORNAKAL ROAD, FAMILY HOSPITAL, SURYA RAO PETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI.

¶15

THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED APCPDCL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, PATAMATA SECTION, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA.

¶18

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, PATAMATA SECTION, VIJAYAWADA.

¶19

¶20

THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ERO, APCPDCL, RING ROAD SECTION, VIJAYAWADA

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR ENERGY

¶26

2.V V SATISH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 15711/2026

¶28

Between:

¶29

SMT. P. SABITHA,, W/O P.V. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE R R FRESH FOODS, R/O DR. NO. 54-29-15, B-202, POTIURI RESIDENCY, CTO COLONY, ROAD NO.2, GURUNANAK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH-520 007

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI 522020

¶33

THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED APCPDCL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA.520004

¶34

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, KANURU SECTION, VIJAYAWADA. 520007

¶35

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, KANURU SECTION, VIJAYAWADA. 520007

¶36

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APCPDCL, KANURU SECTION, VIJAYAWADA. 520007

¶37

¶38

THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ERO, APCPDCL, KANURU SECTION, VIJAYAWADA. 520007

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR ENERGY

¶44

¶45

The Court made the following ORAL COMMON ORDER:

¶46

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submit that the petitioners herein earlier filed these writ petitions challenging notices dated 28.03.2026 and 07.04.2026 issued by the Respondents for payment of development charges.

¶47

After filing of both these writ petitions, the respondents have issued two Memos consequent to the notices (which are under challenge in these writ petitions), issued by Respondents for Development Charges. Unless the above two Memos are not challenged along with demand notices, mere challenging the demand notices only, did not serve the purpose of the petitioners. Hence, they filed the writ petition Nos. 18769 of 2026 and 18771 of 2026 by challenging the Memos and demand notices. In view of the above facts, the petitioners herein have sought permission of this Court for withdrawal of these writ petitions.

¶48

3. Permission granted.

¶49