Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/18684/2025 of PENTA VENKATA SAI KOUSHIK Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 June 2026
reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010366142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18684/2025 Between: 1. PENTA VENKATA SAI KOUSHIK, S/O.
Date of reserved for orde
Date of pronouncement
Date of uploading
APHC010366142025
IN TH
TUESDAY
TWO
THE HONOURA
WR
Between:
1. PENTA VENKATA
YEARS, R/O. D
STREET,
RAJAMAHENDRA
DISTRICT.
2. NALLAMOLU NA
YEARS, R/O. D.N
ROAD, RAJAHMU
3. PINNAMAREDDY
45 YEARS, R/O
VINAYAKA TEMP
DISTRICT.
4. SANABOINA SAT
YEARS, R/O.
SIVALAYAM,
RAJAMAHENDRA
Neutral Citat
ers
: ----
: 23.06.2026
: 25.06.2026
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUN
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
RIT PETITION NO: 18684/2025
A SAI KOUSHIK, S/O. P. TRINAD
D.NO.78-13-6, BRUNDAVANAM
NEAR
SWAMY
VIDYALAYA
AVARAM, SYAMALA NAGAR, EAS
ARENDRA,, S/O. RAMANJANEYULU
NO.54-7-10, SHEELA NAGAR, AV
UNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. P. VENKAT
O. D.NO.3-151, RAYUDUPAKALA R
PLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAS
TYANARAYANA,, S/O. SUBBARA
D.NO.64-35-2/1, SUBBARAO NAG
QUARY
MARKET
AVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRIC
RC,J
tion:__________
DESH
NE
LAPATI
H, AGED 28
RESTAURANT
HOSPITAL,
ST GODAVARI
U AGED 38
V APPA RAO
T.
TA RAO, AGED
ROAD, NEAR
ST GODAVARI
O, AGED 68
GAR, NEAR
CENTRE,
CT.
RC,J
5. KOTHAPALLI
BALA
SUBRAHMANYAM,,
S/O.
(LATE)
K.
SATYANARAYANA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.80-4-10, KANCHANA HEIGHTS, SAI NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6. AKULA SYAM BABU,, S/O. BHASKARA RAO AGED 47 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.79-18-1/1, OMKAR STREET, NAVEEN TRAVELS, SYAMALA
NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
7. GANDHAM DHUSYANTHA KUMAR,, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED
30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.60-6-10/1, P AND T COLONY, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
8. VAKALAPUDI BALA NARESH,, S/O. (LATE) TATARAO, AGED 37
YEARS,
R/O.
D.NO.71-5-32,
BATHINA
NAGAR,
RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
9. POTHULA VENKATA GANESH KUMAR,, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED
YEARS,
R/O.
D.NO.35-6-14,
POTULA
VARI
STREET,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
10. ADABALA VEERAKRISHNA,, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO AGED 37
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-60, NEAR PANCHAYATI, PEDAPUDI, ATCHUTAPURATRAYAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
11. MEDDAPATI RAJA RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. VEERA RAGHAVA
REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.57-2-2/1, MALLIKHARJUNA
NAGAR, KORUKONDA ROAD, OPP CTRI BACKSIDE GATE, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
12. GUTTULA SUBBA LAKSHMI,, W/O. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED 52
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10-205, SUBRAHMANYAM SWAMI TEMPLE
STREET, VEMAGIRI VILLAGE, KADIYAM MANDAL, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, A.P.
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
RC,J
DISTRICT.
2. THE
COMMISSIONER
AND
DIRECTOR,
PROHIBITION
AND
EXCISE,
EXCISE
COMPLEX,
R.S.NO.88-2B,
SAI
VIHAR
APARTMENTS, POULTRY FARM ROAD PRASADAMPADU (V), VIJAYAWADA-521108.
3. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, LICENSING
AUTHORITY,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.
BY
ITS
COMMISSIONER,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST
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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in fixing the Retail Excise Tax (RET) at Rs.85,00,000/- for the year 2024-2025 and Rs.93,50,000/- for the year 2025-2026 in respect of the Shops in Gazette SI.Nos.EG-23, EG-4, EG-10, EG-15, EG- 25, EG-28, EG-13, EG-09, EG-24, EG-11, EG-03 and EG-02 in the Notification published by the way of Errata in Gazete No.75
dated
01-10-2024
in
Rajamahendravaram Urban Area by taking into consideration of the population of the Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation as above 5
lakhs by including the villages to be merged in the Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation as highly arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to fix the Retail Excise Tax by taking into consideration of the actual population of Rajamahendravaram as per 2011 census i.e., 3,41,831 into consideration and adjust the Retail Excise Tax paid in respect of our respective Shops by treating the Retail Excise Tax for the year 2024-2025 as Rs.65,00,000/- and Rs.71,50,000/- for the year 2025-2026 as per 2011 population census and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-fix the Retail Excise RC,J
Tax in respect of Shop Nos. EG-23, EG-4, EG-10, EG-15, EG-25, EG-28, EG-13, EG-09, EG-24, EG-11, EG-03 and EG-02 by taking into consideration of population of Rajamahendravaram as less than 5 lakhs pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondents to file Counter Affidavit and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR PROHIBITION
The Court made the following:
RC,J
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
Sri Ramesh Babu T., learned counsel, representing Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that cause this writ petition no longer survives and the writ petition has become infructuous.
2. In view the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR 23rd June, 2026. RR Whether the order is Speaking
Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable