The Court declined to interfere with a Municipal Commissioner's order permitting a statue installation. The order was based on a validated Supreme Court directive, and since the matter was transmitted to High Courts, no ground for interference existed.
Writ petition fails and is consigned to record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33813 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ashok Bhushan Gupta And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through D.M. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Pandey,Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority and Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the name of Ashok Bhushan Gupta as Alok Bhushan Gupta in the title of memo of petition.
In compliance of our earlier order dated 23.10.2019, the Municipal Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar has filed his personal affidavit which is taken on record.
Sri Santosh Kumar Sharma who is the Municipal Commissioner in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar is also present in the Court today.
From the perusal of affidavit, we find that the order of the Apex Court dated 18.01.2013 in the matter of Union of India v. State of Gujarat & others, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8519 of 2006 has been annexed and in which we find a clear cut direction in para 4 which is reproduced hereunder:
"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 statue 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 or 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 beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities."
From the perusal of the order impugned, therefore, we find that the order has been passed on the basis of direction as contained in the order of Apex Court, although the matter seems to have been subsequently transmitted to the respective States under the
orders of Apex Court dated 31.01.2018, but the directions as contained in the order dated 18.01.2013 extract of which has been quoted here in above has not been modified and in view therefore we are of the opinion that once the decision has been taken by the Municipal Commissioner in compliance of the order of Apex Court, there is no question of any interference by this Court, even otherwise, since the matter has been remitted to the respective High Courts, it is always open for the petitioner to pursue such remedy in the pending matter but once the order has been passed in compliance of the order of the Apex Court, the propriety does not permit to interfere with the consequential orders passed by the authorities.
Before we part, we may also observe that since we had passed the order directing the Municipal Commissioner to be present to explain as to from which order of the Apex Court, the paragraph has been quoted in its order, he is present and has justified his order by placing the order of the Apex Court, we record our appreciation for his assistance rendered to the Court and accordingly we exempt his personal appearance in the matter.
In view of the observations made herein above, we declined to interfere in the order impugned.
Writ petition fails and is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 IrfanUddin
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should interfere with an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner in compliance with directions of the Apex Court regarding statue installation.
Whether the propriety permits interference with consequential orders passed by authorities in compliance with Apex Court directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. State of Gujarat & others, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8519 of 2006Referred¶9
Alok Bhushan Gupta and 5 others
State of U.P. through D.M. and 2 others
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
