Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8810/2015 of City Public Protection Committee of Sree Swamy Vivekananda, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 8810/2015 Between: 1. CITY PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF SREE SWAMY VIVEKANANDA,, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
APHC010573552015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 8810/2015
Between:
1. CITY PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF SREE SWAMY
VIVEKANANDA,,
ELURU,
WEST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT,
(REGD.NO.451/2014), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO.20B-1-6, KOTHAPETA, SABBAVARAPUVARI
STREET,
ELURU,
WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT KOLA BHASKARA
RAO S/O CHINNABBAI, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O
H.NO.20A-16-33,
DASARI
YERRAIAHVARI
STREET,
KOTHAPETA, II TOWN, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. KAMMELA KUMARA SEKHAR, S/O SOMA SEKHARA RAO, AGE
ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O D.NO.20-B-2-60, KUMARA SEKHAR
STREET, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, ignoring the opinion of the standing coi..rtrsel and representation made by the petitioner dated 24-02-2015 as illegal, Arbitrary and violative of legal duty vested on the 2nd respondent, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent and pass.
IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 11616 OF 2015
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to initiate the action, basing on the representation made by the petitioner dated 24.02.2015 pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass.
IA NO: 4 OF 2015(WPMP 49315 OF 2015
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T N M RANGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO
2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.8810 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.02.2015, seeking appropriate action against respondent No.3 and others, who are alleged to have been involved in a criminal conspiracy and creation of sham documents in favour of third parties in respect of the property which vests in respondent No.2.
2. The learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed counter and it is stated in the counter that the subject property of the writ petition is vacant and has not been allotted in favour of any third party, as apprehended by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent No.3 has passed away during the COVID-19 Pandemic period and, therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive any further.
3. In viewof the above submissions, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KGM Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
WRIT PETITION No.8810 of 2015 Dated 06.08.2026
KGM