Sri Mada Suryaprakash Reddy, vs Prl.Secy., Gad., State Of T.S.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 226 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                     WRIT APPEAL No.595 of 2018

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.38329 of 2015 filed by him claiming that the respondent

No.3/Joint Collector had erred in granting permission to the

respondent No.7 to open a new Mee-Seva Citizen Service Center

(CSC) at Bhimaram Village of Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District, vide

letter dated 14.10.2015.

2. The plea of the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single

Judge was that the aforesaid permission had been granted contrary to

G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 09.10.2012 read with the guidelines dated

01.01.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 18.10.2011 issued by the

respondent No.1/State of Telangana. By the impugned order, the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant/petitioner on the ground that it was misrepresented by him

that the population of the subject village was less than 5000, which

was factually erroneous. It has been held that in view of the fact that

the people have adapted to technology and more and more persons

own smart phones, they expect seamless access to information

through ICT platforms. Such an expectation by those residing in rural

areas cannot be questioned, as such Centres provide a hub for all

internet-related activities. We may reproduce below, paras 7 and 8 of

the impugned order, which contains the reasons for rejecting the writ

petition:-

"7. As evident from guidelines for implementation of e-Governance notified in G.O.Ms.No.1, Information technology, Electronics & Communications Department dated 01.01.2014, the endeavor of Government is to ensure that all Government services should be accessible to the common man at his fingertips on the internet or in his neighborhood through service delivery outlets. By the time said GO was issued, more than 220 citizen-centric services spanning 18 Departments were already delivered through Mee-Seva platform and G.O., envisaged extension of 150 more services by the end of March, 2014. In the last few years, Information and Communication Technology has penetrated deep into every spare of human life and awareness and desire to access information has also increased tremendously. More and more people are owning smart phones. People have become tech-savy. They are expecting seamless access to all information about their day to day life and governance. People are more eager to avail Government services through ICT platform. Citizens expect on time delivery of services by the Government at their door steps. All this is possible with modern technology. Full potential of ICT is yet to be realized. ICT platform enables the Government to expand citizen centric services on every aspect of governance. Government also

appears to be keen on expanding the scope of accessing to its services on line. Citizen awareness and availing facilities has not penetrated in rural areas, but the progress made so far is good, and opportunities are unlimited. It is not too far, when these centers/kiosks would be hub of all internet related activities, be it of Government, public sector organizations or securing wealth of information available on the web. Thus, it cannot be said that addition of Mee-Seva center would make existing center unviable.

8. It is also appropriate to note that petitioner sought to contend that population of village is only 6476 by placing reliance on 2011 Census. Seven years down the lane population may have grown. Further, as stated by counsel appearing for 7th respondent, this village has now become Mandal Headquarters. As stated by respondents, population of surrounding villages is 15493 as per 2011 Census and may have grown further by now. It is stated that 13 villages surrounding this village do not have internet connectivity. It is a fact that internet is not accessible in all villages. The service provider enables internet services depending on the use and viability. Thus, all villages cannot have uninterrupted internet facility. Primary requirement to establish Mee- Seva centers is availability of internet access, otherwise it would defeat the very object of providing such centers"

3. As is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order, the

learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the increase in the

population of the village, instead of relying on the population

reflected in the 2011 census. The court has also taken note of the fact

that the village in question has become the Mandal Headquarters and

the population has risen to 15,493 even as per the 2011 census. We

are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that

making another Mee-Seva center available in the area is not a decision

taken without any application of mind and nor was there any political

pressure for granting permission to open another Mee-Seva center.

4. Even the earlier decision taken by the Department a month

before rejecting the request of the respondent No.7 for permission to

set up a new Mee-Seva center has been found to be contrary to the

guidelines. We see no reason why the respondents/authorities could

not have reviewed the earlier decision at the instance of the local

MLA and reconsider the fact situation for granting permission to the

respondent No.7 to open a Mee-Seva Centre keeping in mind the

parameters required to be followed in that regard. The very fact that

over the past few years, respondent No.7 has continued to profitably

operate the Mee-Seva center goes to show that both parties have

enough clientele and there is ample room for business to prosper for

both. Merely because the appellant/petitioner is feeling a pinch in his

profits can hardly be a ground to question the decision of the

respondents/authorities to grant permission to the respondent No.7 to

run an additional Mee-Seva center in the same village. The larger

public interest will have to take precedence over the personal interest

of the appellant.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated

20.02.2018 passed in W.P.No.38329 of 2015 is upheld and the present

appeal is dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications,

if any, with no orders as to costs.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 02.02.2021 Lur/vs