WP/652/2026 of Penmetsa Chandra Sekhara Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 October 2026

1. PENMETSA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAJU,, S/., LATE V.V.V GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RIO., D.NO., 21-2-15/3, BONTHU VEEDHI, VENKINAYUDU PETA, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GVMC, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

(GVMC), ANAKAPALLI ZONE, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT)

4. CHINTHA VENKATA SURYA NARAYANA RAJU, S/O RAMACHANDARA RAJU, AGES ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VUDA COLONY, CANTONMENT, VIZAINAGARAM TOWN, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P SRI RAM

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri V.Sai Likhith, learned counsel appearing for Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri ASC Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation that, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 07.01.2026, the respondent authorities have passed orders on the representation dated 24.11.2025. Considering the submissions. It is stated that the property tax relating to Assessment No.1087006903 has been transferred in the name of the petitioner from the 4th respondent. In view of the same, the petitioner submits that the relief sought in the writ petition would not merit for further consideration.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to disclose in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the pendency of the second appeal and the interim orders passed therein. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits

that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. However, having regard to the interim directions of this Court, directing the respondent-Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 24.11.2025 submitted by the petitioner, since the orders have already been passed on the representation dated 24.11.2025. It is open to the 4th respondent to challenge the said proceedings, if aggrieved.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 10.10.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 652 OF 2026

Date: 10.10.2026 BSK