Nalla Vijay Uma Chandra Mouli & Ors. v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Since the other side has no objection, the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226, 300A
- APMC Act, 1955 ss. 452(2), 461(2)
- Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
Judgment
M/s. Sri Veera Anjaneya Construction, A registered partnership firm (Regd No.25/2013), Rep by its Managing Partner, Vallabhanenr Durga Prasad S/o V. Pandu Ranga Rao, Aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.31- 25-48/10, Sri Krishna Nagar, Road No.3, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. AND ...PETITIOKtER(S)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of MA & UD, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Vishakhapatnam Rep by its Commissioner. ^ 1- I .<.■ - t ;
The Assistant City Planner, Gajuwaka, Zone-VI, Greater -A-.. •M' \ 16 , V'isakhapatnam Municipal Corporation ^e Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, MyMRDA), Vishakhapatnam, Rep by Metropolitan Commissioner ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section ISl'^CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners herein to withdraw the above W.P.No.23118 of 2024, with liberty to question/ challenge the proceedings EDS/1086/2024/0265 dated 18.03.2023 and Notice NO.01/WPPS-108640 5/GVMC/UC/2024 dated 22.08.2024 issued by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein. W.P.No.23118of 2024: 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 to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the action of Respondent No.4 herein in issuing proceedings Computer NO.2401365/2024/SDT-2,
07.10.2024 rejecting the No- Objection Certificate for construction of G PLUS 4 building in Sy.No.35/14 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing Confirmation Order under Section 452 (2) and 461 (2) of APMC Act, 1955 vide Notice No.OI/WPPS- 1086405/GVMC/UC/2024 dated 22.08.2024 Stop Work Order Letter No.SWO/1086/2024/0227 .18.03.2024, insisting for NOC from Respondent No. 4 as being illegal. arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of natural justice violative of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Consequently, proceedings Computer NO.2401365/2024/SDT-2 dated 07.10.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 and Notice No.OI/WPPS-Order vide Confirmation 1086405/GVMC/UC/20 24
22.08.2024 Stop Work Order Letter No.SWO/1086/2024/0227 dated 18.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.2. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondents not to interfere with construction activity undertaken Petitioner schedule property admeasuring an extent of extent of 1240.27Sq.yards situated in Sy.No.35/14 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District or take any other coercive steps against the Petitioners, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI N ASHWANI KUMAR " Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3; SRI J DILIP KUMAR( SC FOR GVMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR(SC FOR The Court made the following: ORDER VMRDA AND MUDA) // y- APHC010402752017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN I.A.No.a of 2024 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 23118/2024 Between: Nalla Vijay Uma Chandra Mouli and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner{S):
1.N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S);
1.GP FORMUNCiPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 1 The Court made the following Order: 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. The I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed during the pendency of this writ petition to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to question the proceedings of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 18.03.2024 and 22.08.2024.
Operative part
3. Since the other side has no objection, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is open for the petitioners to question the proceedings of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 18.03.2024 and 22.08.2024 if so advised as per law. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI. N. ASHWANI KUM^, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEVELOPMENT High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
3. OneCCto SRI. V. SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA AND MUDA), Advocate [OPUC]
OneCCto SRI. J. DILIP KUMAR (SC FOR GVMC), Advocate [OPUC]
Three C.D.Copies / NM HIGH COURT DATED:05/11/2024 ORDER I.A.No.2 of 2024 IN/AND WP.No.23118 of 2024 ? 0 3 MAY 2025 ^ . Current iieciion ^ DISMISING THE lA IN/AND WP AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Since the other side has no objection, the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226, 300A; APMC Act, 1955 — ss. 452(2), 461(2); Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Oct 2024. The bench was B KRISHNA MOHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.