Andhra Pradesh High Court
WA/632/2026 of SHAIK HANEEF Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 7 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 632 of 2026 Shaik Haneef and others ...Appellants Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr Vinod Kumar Pemmasani Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Municipal Administration &
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.
APHC010272142026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 632 of 2026
Shaik Haneef and others ...Appellants Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents
********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr Vinod Kumar Pemmasani Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for R.1, GP for Revenue for R.2, Mr A S C Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations) for R.3 & R.4
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 8th May, 2026
LISA GILL, CJ.
Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside order dated 06.05.2026 passed in WP.No.13348 of 2026 wherein interim relief as sought by writ petitioners – appellants, for time being, has not been afforded.
2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that respondent authorities have failed to stop illegal running of a private market leading to no business being conducted at shops of present appellants – writ petitioners.
HCJ & NJS, J WA-632-2026
3. It is in this factual matrix that appellants seek stay of deposit of rentals which they are bound to deposit pursuant to auction proceedings held on 20.08.2025 and shops being allotted on 22.08.2025. It is submitted that lease deeds as such had not been executed and registered between parties.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation has refuted the above while submitting that lease deeds dated 02.09.2025 were executed between parties and writ petitioners – appellants herein are liable to deposit rent. It is submitted that official respondents shall take necessary action to stop any illegal activity as may be going on.
5. We have heard learned counsel for parties.
6. It is an admitted fact that writ petition filed by present appellants is still pending adjudication. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 06.05.2026 whereby, for time being, interim relief has been denied. We do not find any ground to cause interference as arguments raised before us in this appeal are very well within the realm of consideration by learned writ Court and are on merits of the dispute raised in writ petition.
7. Keeping in view of the above, appellants are free to raise all available pleas before learned writ Court. Needless to say, rentals as may be deposited by appellants would remain subject to ultimate decision of writ petition.
HCJ & NJS, J WA-632-2026
8. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
LISA GILL, CJ
NINALA JAYASURYA, J Vjl