Disposed

M.Tata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Mar 2015PIL/10/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to close the public interest litigation regarding the installation of a statue near a public bus stand without permission. It directed the Collector to verify the necessity of permission and the location of the statue, ordering its removal if unauthorized, within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to verify permission and location of the statue; removal ordered if unauthorized within three weeks.

M.Tata Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.10 OF 2015

¶8

DATED: 30.03.2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Tata Rao and others

¶11

… Petitioners

¶12

and

¶13

State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶18

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.10 of 2015

¶19

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing, does not want to proceed with the matter and says that the matter may be closed. However, in view of the statement made in the Writ Petition and also that of the affidavit, we are not inclined to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners since it is a public interest litigation. We proceed further with the matter as there are considerable issues involved for decision of this Court.

¶21

This Public Interest Litigation was filed at the point of time when the statue of a particular person was sought to be installed at Veeravasam Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The allegation of the petitioners was that without any permission of the local authority, the statue is sought to be erected near Bus Stand, a public place. When the matter was moved, installation of the statue was complete. However, during pendency of the Public Interest Litigation, as it could be reflected from counter-affidavit that installation of the statue has been completed overnight. On 16.2.2015, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Special Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh made a statement before us that steps had been taken for removal of unauthorized statues erected on the public roads and public places.

¶22

In view of that statement, we direct the Collector to verify firstly, whether any permission has been obtained from appropriate authority for installation of the statue at the bus stand of the place mentioned above and secondly, whether the said statue was installed on the public place. After making the aforesaid enquiry, if it is found no prior permission was taken, then steps must be taken by the Collector for removal of the said statue. This must be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

Subject to the above directions, the Public Interest Litigation is

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶26

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶27

30^th MARCH, 2015.

¶28

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶29

kvni

M.Tata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Tata Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Swamy Srinivasanda Yogi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

M. Kranthi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Chief Secretary

Ballavarapu Hari Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

M. Narsing Rao Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mohammed Haji S/o. Late Mohammed Zahoor, Vs The State of Telangana

U.VenkataRamana, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

K.Chandra Mohan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Rajeshwar Reddy , S/o. K.Bhooma Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana