Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11874/2026 of Bitragunta Ramesh Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11874/2026 Between: 1. BITRAGUNTA RAMESH REDDY, S/O RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67
APHC010219942026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11874/2026
Between:
1. BITRAGUNTA RAMESH REDDY, S/O RAGHAVA REDDY AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS,OCC . AGRICULTURIST, ALLUR PETA, ALLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS, PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT
OF
WATER
RESOURCES,
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS
VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR
DISTRICT.522 238
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.524
3. THE
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION,
BUCHIREDDIPALEM
SUB-DIVISION
BUCHIREDDIPALEM
VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.524 305
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, ALLUR
ALLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT
524 315
5. MEDA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SINGA REDDY ,AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS,
WATER
USERS
ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT
CHANNEL NO.6 ,ALLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R
.NELLORE DISTRICT.534 315
...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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANADAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the Representations of the petitioner dated 1-4-2026, 2-03-2026 submitted to 2nd , 3rd and 4th Respondents not to permit anybody to obstruct the cart track on the 6th Channel called Pallepati Kaluva of Allur Large tank, Allur Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and to 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 to direct 3rd and 4th respondents to remove the gravel laid across the cart track situated on the 6th Channel called Pallepati Kaluva of Allur Large tank, Allur Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DR G V RAVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD
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:
Non consideration of the representations dated 01.04.2026, 02.03.2026 submitted to the respondents requesting them not to permit anybody to obstruct the cart track situated on the 6th channel called Pallepati Kaluva, Allur Large Tank, Allur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, is the grievance of the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Dr.G.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that despite bringing to the notice of the respondent authorities that the 5th respondent is obstructing the subject canal by way of representations dated 02.03.2026 & 01.04.2026, no action has been initiated by the respondents. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and take action on the obstructers, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation submitted that there are no obstructions on the subject canal and the authorities would inform the same to the petitioner in writing, accordingly, prayed to dispose of the writ petition.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to record the said submission and dispose of the writ petition.
6. Taking their submissions into consideration, as the authorities have an intention to inform the petitioner in writing on the subject issue, there remains nothing for adjudication, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:
“The respondents concerned are directed to pass orders on the petitioner’s representations dated 02.03.2026 & 01.04.2026 and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 07th May, 2026
RKS