Dismissed

Dr. Thumati Raja Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary

Telangana HC17 Sept 2012WP/33833/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed a writ petition arguing that statues of political leaders erected on a road divider were illegal. The court characterized the litigation as bogus and misconceived, noting the petitioners failed to identify erectors or conduct necessary research, and sought to bypass an earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs to be paid by petitioners.

Dr. Thumati Raja Rao Vs The Government of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.33833 OF 2011

¶5

DATED:17.9.2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr. Thumati Ratna Rao and others.

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (J2) Department and others.

¶11

…. Respondents

¶12

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.33833 of 2011

¶15

Order: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶16

Assailing the erection of statues of political leaders in the middle of the road as illegal and contrary to G.O. Ms. No.55, dated 8.4.2003, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. A consequential direction was also sought to the respondents to remove the said statues in public interest.

¶17

According to the petitioners, some persons have installed the statues of Ex-Chief Minister, Late N.T. Rama Rao and others on the middle of the road. They further stated that they have no idea as to the persons, who have erected the said statues on the middle of the road.

¶18

On the contrary, the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the statues in question have been erected on the divider long back, i.e., ten years ago. Further more, permission was also granted by the municipal authorities for erection of such statues vide G.O. Rt. No. 336 (J3), dated 18.3.2002 and the said action was also questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6694 of 2002 and by order dated 3.8.2005, this Court dismissed the said writ petition.

¶19

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, by way of public

¶20

interest litigation to get the relief, which they could not obtain at that point of time and are trying to by pass the order dated 18.3.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 6694 of 2002. That apart, the petitioners have not done proper research work in the matter and have not furnished the names of the parties, who have erected the statues nor made such private persons as parties to the present writ petition.

¶21

In our opinion, this litigation is a bogus litigation and the writ petition is mis-conceived.

¶22

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), which shall be payable by the petitioners within a period of one week from today to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.

¶23

Post after two weeks for reporting compliance.

¶24

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶25

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 17-9-2012

¶26

pnb

Dr. Thumati Raja Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Thumati Raja Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Gangadhar Vs The Divisional Manager

D.Satish Chandra Bodhan Nizamabad District Vs Sharta Narsimhulu Adilabad District and 3 Others

Singam Mangamma and 15 Others Vs the Govt of Ap. Revenue (Registration ) Dept. and 3 Others

Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Migrant Labour Union Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of

Banjara Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal

Migrants Rights Council, Affiliated to Migrant forum in Vs The Union of India