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
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.,
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
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.
(1978) 1 SCC 405
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
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
