SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8698

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Inagaluri Malyadri – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 7578/2026



APHC010116192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7578/2026 Between:

1. I NAGALURI MALYADRI, S/O YESOBU, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O

10TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. 110001.

2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G 5 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-

110075.

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER R AND B, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND CENTRAL ROAD FUND ANDHRA PRADESH, AT VIJAYAWADA -

520013

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, BAPATLA DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.- 521001.

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA-

522101

6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAPATLA DIVISION, BAPATLA. 522101

7. THE TAHSILDAR, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA. 522101

8. THE MUNICIPALITY, BAPATLA, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA. 522101

9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 522101

10. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA. 522101 ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in restraining the political groups from establishing unauthorized statues in the No-Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla, without considering the Petitioners representation dated 14.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner and contrary to guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 and in violation of Court Orders in WP.No. 15228 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to not permit to establish unauthorized statues in the No- Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla 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 direct the Respondents to restrain any person or group, including the residents from taking steps to install any statue at the Market Yard Junction, Bapatla and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHARGAV THIMMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

2. GP FOR HOME

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4.

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7578/2026 ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“ to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in restraining the political groups from establishing unauthorized statues in the No-Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla, without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 14.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and contrary to guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 and in violation of Court orders in WP.No.15228 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to not permit to establish unauthorized statues in the No- Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top