M.Chennakesavulu vs State Of Ap., Revenue Dept., 23 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4339 AP

                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO.:             W.P.No.               of 2021
                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.     Date                                  ORDER                                   OFFICE
No.                                                                                    NOTE

1.    26.10.2021   MSM,J

                               W.P.(Sr) No.31785 of 2021

                           Issue notice to the 8th respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the 8th respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within three weeks.

Post after Dussehra Vacation, 2021.

The Registry is directed to print the name of Government Pleader for Home, Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings and Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

_______ MSM,J

I.A.No.1 of 2021

The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner obtained permission to erect statue of "Gosu Raghava Reddy" and it was stayed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.37528 of 2012, dated 06.12.201 but the present MLA Kakani Govardhan Reddy of Sarvepalli constituency has applied for permission to erect statue of his father "Kakani Ramana Reddy" in the same place where this petitioner granted permission i.e., Virur- Nellore-Podalakur road center. The permission granted to this petitioner become useless in case permission is granted to the present MLA Kakani Govardhan Reddy for erection of statue of Kakani

Ramana Reddy, in view of the interim directions in 09.10.2021 S.L.P.(Civil) No.8519 of 2006 and requested to (continuation) issue a direction.

Whereas Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that no permission is yet granted and it is at preliminary stage before the Panchayat. Therefore, the apprehension of this petitioner is misplaced and requested to dismiss the interim direction.

In view of permission granted to this petitioner for erection of statue of "Gosu Raghava Reddy", as it is stayed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.37528 of 2012 by order, dated 06.12.2012 and the same is applicable even to the 8th respondent and the Apex Court by order in SLP (Civil) No.8519 of 2006, dated 18.01.2013, has observed with the following:

"4. Until further orders, we direct that the status-quo, as obtaining today, shall be maintained in all respects by all concerned with regard to the Triangle Island where state of late Shri N.Sundaran Nadar has been permitted to be sanctioned. We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue of construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beatification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities."

Following the same principle, the learned single Judge of this Court in G.Rami Reddy vs. 09.10.2021 The State of AP, in W.P.Nos.344 and 7024 of (continuation) 2019 has reiterated the same view, in view of principles laid in the above judgment, any erection of the statue on roads and road margins and pavements of road is impermissible.

Hence, there shall be an ad-interim direction against the respondents 1 to 7 not to grant permission to 8th respondent to erect statue of his father Kakani Ramana Reddy during pendency of this interlocutory application.

_______ MSM,J

Note: Issue C.C. by today.

(B/o.) SPP