Gantyada Govinda Raju Vs the State of Ap

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents particularly the respondents 2 to 4 in attempting to demolish the existing statue of Smt. Gantyada Venkayamma situated at Main Road Pedagantyada Center, Visakhapatnam which was established/erected on 16/02/2008, without following the guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.55, Transports, Roads and Buildings (R.1) Department, dated 08/04/2003, as directed by this Honble Court in WP.No.4354 of 2024, dated 16/02/2024, while allowing the other existing statues of Sri Late Puli Bhuloka Reddy and Sri Late Dr. Babu Jagajjevan Ram in the same area as illegal, arbitrary, unjust malafide and against the principles of natural justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the subject statue in any manner including its demolition/removal in the interest of justice and to pas s…”

¶23

The petitioner herein who belongs to SC Madiga Community and people belonging to the said community have erected statue of the petitioner’s late mother Gantyada Venkayamma on 16.02.2008, in memory of her death. Along with the said statue, the statue of Dr. Babu Jagajevan Ram and a statue of a local leader by name Puli Bhuloka Reddy were also erected in Peda Gantyada Center. While so, when there was threat of demolition of the statue of the petitioner’s mother, he has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4354 of 2024 which was disposed of on 16.02.2024 by directing the authorities to follow the guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.55 in respect of the subject statue, in case they desire to initiate any action against the said statue.

¶24

While the matter stood thus, on 23.01.2025, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 tried to demolish the subject statue and when the said action was questioned, they went back threatening that they would come with more force. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, if at all intend to remove the said statue, ought to have issued a prior notice to the petitioner duly following the guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶26

Today when the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions wherein it is stated that subsequent to disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 16.02.2024, repeated complaints were received from one Sri. Gondesi Appa Rao through Public Grievance Redressal System to the District Collector reporting that unauthorized installation of a statue by the petitioner at Pedagantyada Junction, Ward075, Sector-II of Pedagantyada RH Colony, is causing public inconvenience and is disrupting transportation in the said area. In response to the same, a letter dated 16.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner herein requesting to submit relevant permissions obtained for the erection of the statue of her mother at Pedagantyada Junction and failing to submit the same would result in initiation of appropriate action for the removal of the unauthorized statue. As the petitioner has not responded to the same nor has submitted relevant permissions, a letter was addressed to the Station House Officer, Pedagantyadaon 09.01.2025 requesting police bandobast for the removal of the subject statue on 24.01.2025 at 10:00 a.m. However, when the respondent authorities approached the subject statue for removal of the same, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC requesting that he would comply with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4354 of 2024 by following the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.55,

¶27

dated 08.04.2023 and further requested to postpone the removal of statue to 16.02.2025. It is further stated that in view of the said requires made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have not proceeded with the demolition of the subject statue.

¶28

On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the subject statue of petitioner’s mother was erected at Pedagantyada Junction, Ward075, Sector-II of Pedagantyada RH Colony in the year 2008. When there was a threat of demolition of the said statue, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.4354 of 2024 wherein this Court has passed the following order on 16.02.2024:

¶29

“8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to follow the guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.55 in respect of the subject statue, in case they desire to initiate any action against the same…”

¶30

Thereafter, the respondent authorities having kept quiet, on 16.11.2024, have issued a notice to the petitioner herein requesting to provide relevant permissions obtained for the erection of the subject statue at Pedagantyada Junction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes service of the said notice dated 16.11.2024 and on the other hand, the respondents have also failed to produce acknowledgment to prove that the said notice has been served on the petitioner.

¶31

As the petitioner has failed to submit any relevant permissions, the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC vide letter dated 09.01.2025 has requested the Station House Officer, Pedagantyada Police Station, requesting to provide sufficient police constable for bandobast to maintain law and order during the course of removal of unauthorized construction on 24.01.2025. Accordingly, on 24.01.2025, the respondent authorities initiated action for demolition of the subject statue.

¶32

On a perusal of the instructions furnished by the respondents, it is an admitted fact that the notice dated 16.11.2024 was not served on the petitioner and the respondents, though claim to have served a copy of the said notice on the petitioner, have failed to furnish the copy of the acknowledgment to prove that it has been served on the petitioner. In such a case, the respondents cannot initiate action for demolition of the said statue without following due procedure stipulated under G.O.Ms.no.55, dated 08.04.2003 as directed by this Court in the earlier order dated 16.02.2024 in W.P.No. 4354 of 2024.

¶33

In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner herein to submit all the relevant permissions obtained for erecting the subject statue at Pedagantyada Junction, Ward 075, Sector-II of Pedagantyada RH Colony, in pursuance of the notice dated 16.11.2024, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent authorities shall conduct an enquiry and thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the subject statue at Pedagantyada Junction, Ward075, Sector-II of Pedagantyada RH Colony.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

________________________

¶37

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶38

Date:24.01.2025 Gss

Gantyada Govinda Raju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gantyada Govinda Raju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s, Indus Towers Limited, Vs Anantapur Municipal Corporation

Gudapati Durga Varada Bhujanga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Battula Lakshminarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagothi Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

Karumudi Chenchaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Duvvu Satya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh