G.O.Ms.No.18 vs Government Pleader For Municipal ...

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 730 AP
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.O.Ms.No.18 vs Government Pleader For Municipal ... on 9 February, 2022
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                  WRIT PETITION No.3291 OF 2022

ORDER:-

        This writ petition for a Mandamus is filed to declare the action

of 2nd respondent in placing the subject relating to granting

permission for erection of a statue of late Sri Konijeti Rosaiah garu in the public place on the agenda for meeting in the Municipal Council, as illegal and contrary to the direction given by the Honourable Apex Court in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in S.L.P.(C).No.8519 of 2006 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-1) Department, dated 18.02.2013 and consequently sought direction to the respondents not to grant permission for erection of the statue.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for 1st respondent, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality for respondents 2 and 4, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 3 and 5 and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondents 6 to 9.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 10th respondent has applied for permission to the Municipal Commissioner to erect a statue of late Sri Konijeti Rosaiah in the public place and the same is now placed on agenda for meeting in the Municipal Council and it cannot be the item to be considered in the Municipal Council in view of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in S.L.P.(C).No.8519 of 2006 and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 which prohibits erection of statues in the public place. Therefore, the petitioner has 2 approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Kovvur Municipality appearing for respondents 2 and 4 would submit that no resolution was passed by the Council granting any such permission for erection of statue and it is still under the consideration of the Council to pass appropriate orders and the Council would pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in S.L.P.(C).No.8519 of 2006 and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013. So, he would submit that the writ petition is pre-mature.

5. I find considerable force in the said contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality. No decision has been taken by the Municipal Council and no resolution was passed granting any permission to the 10th respondent to erect any such statue in the public place contrary to the direction of the Honourable Apex Court or G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013. The Municipal Council has to still take a final decision on it. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a pre- mature writ petition. Therefore, no declaration as sought for by the petitioner can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, as it is stated that the 10th respondent has already erected a platform for erection of the statue in the public place without any prior permission, this Court is of the considered view that a direction is required to be given to the 4th respondent-Municipal Commissioner of Kovvur Municipality to take appropriate steps to demolish the said platform which was illegally constructed in the public place without any prior permission.

3

6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent-Municipal Commissioner, Kovvur Municipality to immediately take necessary action for demolition of the said platform which was erected by the 10th respondent in the public place without any prior permission as required under law. In case, any resolution is passed granting permission for erection of any such statue in the public place, contrary to the direction of the Honourable Apex Court and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 09-02-2022 ARR 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.3291 OF 2022 Date : 09-02-2022 ARR