Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17118/2026 of C VENUGOPAL REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 27 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17118/2026 Between: 1. C VENUGOPAL REDDY, S/O LATE C.C. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S
APHC010326762026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 17118/2026
Between:
1. C VENUGOPAL REDDY, S/O LATE C.C. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BALAJI GAS
AGENCIES, INDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, R/O D.NO 9/429, SRINIVASA NAGAR, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
516360.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
AND
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238
2. THE PRODDATURMUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. - 516360.
3. THE
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER,
SREE
SUNKU
VENKATASUBBAIAHCHOULTRY, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT
- 516360.
...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly on in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in taking steps to remove the slabs/ramps placed at D. No. 9/429,Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur across the Proddatur Channel -1 which is their only access
point for ingress and egress to the main road without issuing any notice, without calling for any explanation and without following due process of law as per se being illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to remove the slabs and rampsat D. No. 9/429,Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur except by following due process of law in the interest of justice and pass 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 direct the respondent authorities not to demolish/remove the slabs/rampsat D. No. 9/429,Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur except by following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V NITESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
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:-
The present writ petition is filed apprehending demolition of the ramp constructed by the petitioner by respondent No. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is carrying on business in the premises bearing Door No. 9/429, Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur. It is submitted that the property abuts a drainage channel and, in order to facilitate ingress and egress to the business premises, the petitioner constructed a ramp across the drain. According to the petitioner, the ramp does not encroach upon the public road nor does it cause any inconvenience to the general public. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2, acting on a representation submitted by a representative of a political party alleging that certain persons had covered drains with slabs for construction of ramps, thereby obstructing the free flow of rainwater and causing water stagnation during the rainy season, inspected the site and issued the impugned notice dated 17.06.2026, calling upon the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that constructions over drains obstruct the free flow of drainage water and, therefore, the impugned notice was rightly issued.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no construction has been made inside the drain and that the structure in question is only a side ramp laid across the drain, which does not obstruct the free flow of water. In support of the said contention, photographs showing the existing slab over the drain have been placed before this Court.
4. Having considered the submissions, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed not to demolish the ramp laid by the petitioner across the drain, provided that the same does not obstruct the free flow of drainage water. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not make any construction inside the drain or otherwise cause obstruction to the flow of water. It is further made clear that, in the event any construction is found to have been made within the drain causing obstruction to the free flow of water, respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs..
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 28.07.2026 RSD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 17118/2026
28.07.2026 RSD