Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/33642/2014 of B.Tirupathi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 July 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010484082014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33642/2014 Between: 1.
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010484082014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 33642/2014
Between:
1. B.TIRUPATHI REDDY,, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, RETD. TEACHER, RIO. PULL VENKATAREDDYGAR
STREET, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DIST.
2. J.TIRUPATHI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KOTHA PETA, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
3. GADAMSETTY
VENKATA
ANANTA
PRASAD,
S/O.
VENKATANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. BALAJI RESIDENCY, YSR ROAD, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. G.CHINA
MAHANANDEESWARA
RAO,
S/O.
PEDA
MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS., OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BALAJI RESIDENCY, YSR ROAD, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
5. V. CHINA MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. NARSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BALAJI RESIDENCY, YSR
ROAD, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DIST.
6. M.VENKATA KISHORE REDDY, S/O. SIVANARAYANA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O.
KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.
BY
ITS
SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
&
URLAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
HN, J
W.P.No.33642_2014
HYDERABAD.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, KANIGIRI NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KANIGIRI,PRAKASAM 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the structures raised by us at 8th ward, YSR Road, Kanigiri Town and Nagar Panchayat limits, Prakasam District without passing any final orders in pursuance to the explanation submitted to the provisional notice dated 5.8.2014 issued by him as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same, with a direction directing the respondent .No.2 to consider the request of the petitioners for regularisation in exercise of the powers conferred on him Under section 218-A of the AP Municipalities Act and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 42082 OF 2014
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 forbear the reasondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the structures erected by them in 8th ward, YSR Road, Kanigiri Town and Nagar Panchayat limits, Prakasam District by demolition or otherwise pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A VARALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
2. J DILEEP KUMAR
HN, J
W.P.No.33642_2014
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 was listed before this Court on 14.10.2024. On the said date, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner(s).
2. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner(s), despite the matter being called.
3. It appears that the petitioner(s) are not interested in prosecuting the present writ petition. Since there is no representation of behalf of the petitioner(s) in earlier occasions, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:20.07.2026 NKA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
HN, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 33642 of 2014 Date: 20.07.2026
NKA