Telangana High Court
Colours Utsav Mela vs State Of Telangana on 21 June, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.15612 OF 2024
ORDER :
(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking following relief:
"...to issue a Writ order or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the Memo dated 18-06-2024 bearing No.HCP/A/A2/0057/2024 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and declare the same as nonest in law and violative of Article 14, 19 of Constitution of India as the Police Authorities did not properly measure the entire parking area as per the parking area sketch plan submitted by the Petitioner along with Google Map, and consequently this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Police Authorities especially Respondent No.2 to grant permission to the petitioners to conduct the event of M/s Colours Utsav Mela at HMDA Ground beside I-Max Theater, Necklace Road, Hyderabad for a further period of 35 days from today i.e., from 20.06.2024 to 15.07.2024 as adequate parking space is available and be pleased to pass ..."
2. In the earlier round of litigation, petitioners have filed W.P. No.14621 of 2024 wherein order dated 11.06.2024 was passed by this Court directing respondent No.2 to consider the application/representation of the petitioner dated 25.05.2024 for 2 extension of permission for conducting exhibition. As seen from the record, pursuant to the order of this Court, enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 and he issued impugned memo No.HCP/A/A2/0057/2024 dated 18.06.2024 rejecting the application of the petitioners for the following reasons:
1. "The proposed place (HMDA ground) to conduct the exhibition is located just beside Necklace rotary which is a busy 4 arm junction from the traffic point of view with significant public & VIP movement. Thus, the proposed place of the exhibition hinder hassle free traffic movement due to significant footfall on and irregular parking of vehicles on the main road by the visitors.
2. The proposed place (HMDA Ground) is being used for parking of vehicles by public who visit the tourist attractions such as New Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, NTR Garden, Lumbini Park, Martyr's memorial, Tank Bund, Telangana State Secretariat, Necklace Road, People Plaza etc. If the above said place is allocated for holding the exhibition, it becomes difficult for general/public tourists visiting the above mentioned tourist spots to park their vehicles resulting in parking of vehicles on the road NTR Marg leading to traffic snarls.
3. The applicant has stated that out of 20,185.72 sq. meters of HMDA ground 40% of the area i.e., 8269.75 Sq.
meters is earmarked for parking, But during the field inspection, it was found that only 24% of the area i.e., 3 4768.48 Sq. meters is earmarked for parking which is insufficient for parking, resulting in parking of vehicles on NTR Marg & on the road from Rotary to IMAX theatre, resulting in traffic congestion and jams.
4. It is further reiterated that, in view of the above traffic issues no permission was ever granted to any exhibition during the last 6 years at this venue for such a long period."
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its opinion to that taken by respondent No.2. There are several tourist attractions like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, NTR Garden, Lumbini Park, etc on the necklace road. It will become difficult for the general public and tourists visiting the NTR Marg and recreation centres around the road if the petitioner is granted extension for holding exhibition and this will result in parking of vehicles on the NTR Marg leading to traffic congestion and also lead to law and order problems.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home also submitted that Necklace Road is an important junction from the 4 traffic point of view with regular movement of VIPs including the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Telangana and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana. In view of the traffic issues no permission was granted for conducting exhibition for the past six (6) years at this venue for a long period.
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Hyderabad, appeared before this Court and submitted that petitioners raised tents, installed material and joy rides even before permission was granted. On humanitarian grounds, petitioner was granted permission for a period of fifteen (15) days.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents are blowing hot and cold, the reasons cited by the respondents are not mentioned in the impugned proceedings and also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others 1.
1 (1978) 1 SCC 405 5
7. Heard Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents, and perused the material on record.
8. It is a settled law that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has limited jurisdiction. This Court is only concerned with the process of decision making. This Court is not convinced with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of respondents is arbitrary or that it suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Respondent No.2 having duly considered the request of the petitioners for extension of permission to conduct exhibition issued impugned memo dated 18.06.2024 by giving detailed reasons. It is well known fact that Necklace Road is an important junction and there is movement of VIPs' on that road on daily basis. There are visitors and tourists who come to various recreational centres on the Necklace road. Moreover, the petitioners are only licensees and after expiry of the license period, they do not have any right to seek extension, when the respondent No.2 is not inclined to do for the reasons mentioned 6 in the impugned memo. The judgment in Mohinder Singh's case (Supra 1) is not applicable to the facts of the case as the reasons for the rejection are clearly mentioned in the impugned memo. Thus, viewed from any angle the impugned memo does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. There are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 21.06.2024 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow.
(BO)MS