Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7446
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Koyyala Vijaya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 16012 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: UTTARA LEGAL
For the Respondents: KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI, P S SURESH KUMAR, GHANTA SRIDHAR
The court emphasized that a cause of action ceases to exist when the subject matter is resolved, allowing for future recourse if circumstances change.
Headnote:In the present case, the Court considered the submission from the Counsel for the Respondent No.7 regarding the non-erection of a Cell Tower, leading to the determination that the cause of action no longer existed. The Court emphasized the Petitioner's liberty to seek recourse in future if necessary. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs imposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. submission regarding the absence of cell tower leads to dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. final decision to dispose of writ with no costs. (Para 3) |
Heard Sri K.S. Naveen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Uttara Legal (appearing for Writ Petitioner) and Sri Saripudi Raja Mouli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7.
2. Sri Saripudi Raja Mouli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7, on instructions, submit that the Respondent No.7 has not erected any Cell Tower, and therefore, the cause of action does not survive any more.
3. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this matter in terms of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7. Needless to state that the Writ Petitioner is always at liberty to once again approach this Court in case there is any future threat of erection of Cell Tower in the subject place.
