Telangana High Court
Cabinet Secretary, Union Of ... vs G.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hyd 2 ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON`BLE SRI JUSTICE: SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 945 of 2014
(Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act against the order in
WVMP.No. 752/2014 in W.P. No. 5782 of 2014 dated 29-04-2014 on the file
of the High Court).
Between:
1. Union of India, rep .by its Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Officer Commanding, The Station/Sector Commander, Headquarters,
AOC Centre, Secunderabad.
... Appellants/Respondents 1
&2
AND
1. G.Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late G.Satyanarayana Reddy, Occ:
Business, R/o. H.No. 14-14, Madhsudhan Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad -
47.
Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2. Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep .by its Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Buildings, Secunderabad Court Complex, Secunderabad.
3. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep .by its Commissioner, Tank
Bund, Hyderabad.
(R3 is suo motu impleaded as per Court order dated. 14-3-2014)
(R.No.2 is not necessary party in this Writ Appeal)
Writ
Petitioner/Respondents
This Writ Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal
filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Asst.
Solicitor General for the Appellants, Sri Peri Prabhakar, Advocate for the
Respondent No.1 and of M/s. Deepthi, Advocate for the Respondent No.3, the Court
made the following
ORDER:
" This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the
learned trial Judge, dated 29th April, 2014 whereby His Lordship has been
pleased to refuse to vacate the interim order dated 28th February, 2014
(hereinafter referred to 'first order'). The interim order dated 28th February,
2014 was passed in combined actions brought by some individual and
member of the public to challenge the decisions of appellant authority to close
the portions of four roads run through Secunderabad Cantonment areas.
2. The interim order dated 28th February, 2014 passed by the Hon'ble First
Court, reads as follows:
"...Having realized that severe hardship is caused to the commuters
who have been using above stated roads for ages, the authorities concerned
of the Army Ordnance Corps Centre have come forward and convened a
meeting on 3.3.2014 to discuss the modalities for regulating the traffic in the
internal roads of the Army Ordnance Corps Centre, ensure no disturbances to
the trainees, security of the army personnel and other traffic concerns of the
army are addressed in an amicable manner. Learned standing counsel
produced written instructions to that extent.
Thus, the concerned authorities of the Army Ordnance Corps Centre
have realized that their earlier decision is causing lot of hardship and
suffering and needs to be resolved. Since the concerned meeting is
scheduled to be held on 3.3.2014, the writ petition shall stands adjourned to
6.3.2014.
..2..
However, since the commuters who are using the above stated five
roads in and around Army Ordnance Corps Centre for ages, they shall be
permitted to use the said roads unhindered till the issue is resolved and a
permanent mechanism is evolved for the safety of the Army personnel as well
as free flow of traffic to the commuters who have been using those roads for
ages.
Thus, till the next date of hearing, there shall be an interim direction
directing the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.5782 of 2014 and respondent
No.1 in W.P.No.5772 of 2014 not to impose any restriction on free flow of the
traffic and usage by civilian commuters in the following roads:
(1) Entrancement Road: from S.P.Road/East Marredpally to Allahabad
gate;
(2) Wellington Road: from Secunderabad club to Allahabad gate;
(3) Ordinance Road: from Safilguda junction towards Safilguda railway
crossing;
(4) Mornington Road: Tirumalgiri Hanuman temple to Gough road and
(5) Gough Road: Kendriya Vidyalaya crossing to East/West Marredpally.
List on 6.3.2014."
3. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid tenor of the order that on the date of
passing the first order, no opposition of the appellants was recorded. But, we
can reasonably think that there could not be any resistance at that stage
because the army authorities decided to review their decision of imposing
restriction of vehicular movement of the civilians on 3rd March, 2014. Taking
note of the aforesaid fact, the learned trial Judge passed the first order. It
appears from the records that on 4.3.2014 (not on 3.3.2014) the army officials
conducted a meeting with civilian authorities. However, the Minutes thereof
were signed on 5.3.2014. The earlier decision taken on 12th February, 2014
was not withdrawn. The decision taken on 12th February, 2014 is as follows:
(a) "Phase. I. Partial blockage by imposing time based restrictions from
10.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. (Non Peak hours) on daily basis with effect from
25 Feb 2014 to 09 Mar 2014.
(b) Phase II. Complete blockage of roads on A1 defence land of AOC
Centre for civil traffic with effect from 10 Mar 2014 onwards (except
State Transport Buses, emergency vehicles and transport carrying
school children on humanitarian ground)."
4. In the meeting held by the army authorities on 4th March, 2014
following proposals were given to the civil authorities.
"1. ... ... ...
2. The Commandant AOC Centre explained the background which made
it necessary to regulate civil traffic passing through A1 defence land of AOC
Centre. He emphasized on the need to improve all existing civil road
infrastructure by various state authorities so that the general public does not
face any inconvenience once the defence roads are fully regulated. After
discussions with the concerned authorities, a broad understanding and the
way forward to solve the issues which emerged are as under: -
(a) to (c) ... ... ... (page missing)
(d) Improvement of Roads Infrastructure at Tukaram Gate and Lallguda:
GHMC and R & B officials were requested to identify the problem in flow of
traffic in the areas of Tukaram Gate and Lallguda in consultation with traffic
police and take necessary steps to enhance the capacity of roads/flow of
traffic in this area.
(e) All Saint Road - Tirmulgherry Junction - Karkhana - Secunderabad
Club: R & B Department officials were requested to prepare a plan for
removing the congestion at Tirmulgherry junction, take up widening projects
of this road and providing Vehicle Under Pass at Kendriya Vidhyalaya
crossing on All Saint Road. R & B department has been requested to forward
its proposal in this regard.
..3..
(f) Widening of Civil Roads: GHMC and R & B Department also agreed
to process the case for widening of the existing roads around Secunderabad
military station to increase the capacity in consultation with Secunderabad
Cantonment Board, Police and Railways authorities. This is especially in the
context of road from Secunderabad club to Hakimpet. R & B department is to
forward its proposal for this project and is requested to include a vehicle
under pass at MCEME crossing on this road.
3. Officiating Station Commander, Secunderabad, reiterated the urgent
requirement of improving the road infrastructure around the Secunderabad
Military Station for convenience of civil traffic in view of the traffic regulation
measures planned to be undertaken on the Class A1 defence land and internal
roads of AOC Centre.
4. All concerned authorities are requested to forward their proposals for
further necessary action please."
5. Thereafter, a counter was filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble trial
Judge with a prayer for vacating first order on 7.3.2014. On the date of filing
or immediately thereafter, consequent upon meeting as above, there was no
prayer for interim relief for modifying the first order or to vacate the first order
immediately. The vacate application filed along with the counter affidavit was
allowed to be heard finally on 29.4.2014 that resulted in passing of the
impugned order.
6. It is appropriate to note that against first order no appeal was preferred
on the ground of urgency. On the contrary the appellants waited for final
hearing of interim application with vacate application. The impugned order
was passed on 29th April, 2014 keeping the writ petition for further hearing on
23rd June, 2014. The appeal was preferred on 5.6.2014 after reopening. Had
there been any urgency, at least before vacation Bench the appeal could have
been preferred with a prayer for stay of impugned order as sought for today
before us.
7. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits placing classified
confidential document in a sealed envelope that alert of high security is
sounded in the defence area. So taking into consideration of those materials
and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.I.L. No.361 of 2012,
dt.26.11.2012 interim relief for stay of operation of the impugned order should
be passed.
8. On his request, we have examined the materials opening the sealed
envelope. We have also noted the Division Bench judgment of this Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent - writ
petitioner. A learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner in another
connected writ petition, in which the common order was passed, seeks to
intervene in the matter to make submissions. We permit him to do so. Both
the learned counsel say that the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble trial
Judge for decision finally on 23rd June, 2014. The civil authorities also made
submissions which have been recorded by the learned trial Judge. After
considering the balance of convenience, having noted the fact that these
roads are being used, irrespective of assertion and counter assertion with
regard to ownership of the roads for a long time by civilians, the Hon'ble trial
Judge refused to vacate interim order. It is the perception of the Hon'ble trial
Judge if first order is vacated, law and order problem would arise and also
cause serious inconvenience to commuters and public at large.
10. We therefore decide to hear the appeal as we feel there are points to be
decided. However, we cannot decide the appeal right now because the issue
is still pending for final decision before the Hon'ble trial Judge as has been
submitted by all the learned counsels.
11. We have seen the impugned order and it does not appear that the
Hon'ble trial Judge was supplied with the classified confidential documents,
which are placed before us, for consideration. Having looked into them, we
have no doubt in our mind that these documents need serious consideration
of His Lordship and there were not considered by His Lordship. We also note
that His Lordship has no opportunity to deal with the relevancy of the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in relation to the issue raised by the appellants
before us.
..4..
12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners say that the aforesaid decision
is distinguishable. We feel until and unless it is held so by the Hon'ble trial
Judge, we cannot examine this contention. According to us, this matter
requires re-look, so also prima facie findings of the Hon'ble trial Judge and
observations in relation to the issues. We are of the view that any exercise
without consideration of the aforesaid classified confidential document and
the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, cannot be said to be a proper
judicial one even at the interlocutory stage.
13. We, therefore, request the Hon'ble trial Judge to re-examine the matter
taking note of above materials and the judgment of Division Bench and to
come to a fresh conclusion on the merits and demerits of the case on the next
date of hearing, which was fixed on 23.6.2014 (only five days away).
14. His Lordship has been allowed the interim order to continue till final
decision is arrived at. In this context, the learned Assistant Solicitor General
would submit that interim stay should be granted.
15. Firstly, if we grant interim stay of operation of the impugned order, it
amounts to allowing the appeal today itself and also rendering the writ
petition being infructuous before a decision is arrived at, particularly when
going by the aforesaid narration of fact that the army authorities did not feel
any urgency as it was felt before this day. We think that there would be no
harm to bear with the present situation for a few days when the army officials
had waited for months together.
16. However, keeping in view of the security aspect, with partial
acceptance of the submissions of the learned Assistant Solicitor General, and
considering the counter arguments by the learned Lawyers for the petitioners,
we modify the interim order of the Hon'ble trial Judge, till a fresh decision is
taken, in the manner as follows:
Apart from the exempted category of the vehicles as indicated in the
counter affidavit of the appellants, the following regulatory measure of
vehicles movement shall be followed.
(i) There shall not be movement of any goods vehicles,
whether heavy or light, from 9.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. on the
next day morning;
(ii) Light vehicles carrying passengers and those privately
owned, including two wheelers, will be allowed to move, but
again subject to frisking by the army officials, if required, on
the ground of security, with the help of civil police;
(iii) As far as heavy vehicles carrying passengers plied by the
recognized transport operators are concerned, there will be
no movement from 12.00 at night to 7.00 a.m. in the morning
of following day.
It would be open for the army officials during the period of parade and
other defence exercise, if required, in the morning for a brief period of 10
or 15 minutes, to make complete haltage of the traffic movement of all the
vehicles. The army authorities will be free to set up check posts at
different places on the roads with the help of civilian police officials and
local administration to regulate and control flow of traffic in those areas.
17. This modified interim order will continue till the Hon'ble trial Judge
decides the matter finally. This matter will be kept pending and will
reappear on the next Wednesday (25.6.2014). On that day, if judgment is
passed by the Hon'ble trial Judge, this Court will review the situation and
pass necessary orders on that day.
18. The aforesaid order has been passed keeping in view the balance of
convenience of commuters and public at large who have been using the
roads admittedly for a long time. We think that this regulatory measure
will not be prejudicial to the member of the public, who will understand the
subject of security, and the army officials will not be prejudiced for the
time being if the civilian light vehicles are allowed with the restrictions as
above.
..5..
19. The classified confidential documents placed before us are put back in
a sealed cover by the Court Officers in the Court and returned with a
sealed envelope to the learned Assistant Solicitor General asking him to
reproduce the same before the Hon'ble trial Judge."
SD/- P.VENKAT REDDY
ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
for ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR
To
1. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Cantonment
Building, Secunderabad Court Complex, Secunderabad.
2. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court, Hyderabad.
3. Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, High Court, Hyderabad.
(By Spl. Messenger)
4. One CC to M/s. Deepthi, Standing Counsel, High Court, Hyderabad.
5. One CC to Sri Peri Prabhakar, Advocate(OPUC)
6. Two spare copies.
SAH
HIGH COURT
HCJ & SKJ
DATED: 17-06-2014
NOTE: THIS MATTER WILL REAPPEAR ON NEXT
WEDNESDAY (25-06-2014)
ORDER
WA.NO. 945 OF 2014
DIRECTION
DRAFTED BY: SAH
APPROVED BY:
DRAFTED ON: 20-06-2014
HIGH COURT
HCJ & SKJ
DATED: 17-06-2014
NOTE: THIS MATTER WILL REAPPEAR ON NEXT
WEDNESDAY (25-06-2014)
ORDER
WA.NO. 945 OF 2014
DIRECTION
