Dismissed

R.S.Rama Krishna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Jun 2015PIL/314/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a resolution by the Dhone Municipality to construct a building at a site 2 km from the old office, claiming the existing site in the city heart was more convenient. The Court examined the counter-affidavit showing the new site's central location relative to other offices and the adequacy of the remaining area at the old site, finding no ground to interfere with the Munic

What did the court decide?

The PIL was dismissed and miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

R.S.Rama Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of A.P. — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

PIL No. 314 OF 2014

¶5

08-06-2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.S. Rama Krishna Reddy and three others

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Deveopment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶13

AND

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶15

PIL No. 314 OF 2014

¶16

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶17

The petitioners, in this PIL, seek to challenge the resolution dated 25-10-2015 passed by the 3^rd respondent – Municipality resolving to construct a new building for Dhone Municipality in Sy.No.294/B2A, Venkatayanunipalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool district. They have also prayed for direction to the 3^rd respondent to construct new building at the existing site, which, according to them, is measuring about 39 cents.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if municipality building is constructed at the proposed site, that would cause inconvenience to the people at large since it is away from the city. He submitted that the existing building site is in the heart of the city and it will be convenient to everyone if building is constructed at this site. He also submitted that a resolution was passed by the 3^rd respondent in the year 2008 to construct the building for the municipality at the existing site.

¶19

We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent. In view of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the counter, it appears that after construction of e-seva center at the existing site, what is left is only 21 cents, which would be absolutely insufficient to accommodate building for the municipality. As against this the site of proposed building is

¶20

50 cents. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter, they have replied to the objection as to inconvenience to the people at large, which, in our opinion, deserves to be reproduced:

¶21

“7. It is submitted that, after taking over charge of Chairperson, the 4^th respondent along with the Nagar Panchayat members reviewed the matter at number of times. Finally, after perusing the report of the Revenue Officials mentioned above, and after making thorough enquiries to select suitable site and as it is not available, and as there is no scope to construct office buildings in the open sites of the Nagar Panchayat which are reserved for public purposes, the 4^th respondent herself came forward to donate a site of her own admeasuring 50 cents situated in Sy.No.294/B2A of Done on free of cost to construct Office buildings and for other purposes of the Nagar Panchayat. As per the information

¶22

gathered by this respondent, the 4^th respondent and her predecessors-intitle in Dhone are charitable persons and donated voluntarily number of acres of land of their own to temples, Schools and Societies in Dhone Town.

¶23

8. It is submitted that the features of the site of an extent of 50 cents in Sy.No.294/B2A of Dhone donated by the 4^th respondent are as follows:

¶24

1. The donated site is 500 meters from the New Bus Station of Dhone.

¶25

2. It is 400 meters from Dhone Electricity Office.

¶26

3. It is 200 meters from House Hold Gas Office.

¶27

4. It is 200 meters from Govt. ITI.

¶28

5. It is 300 meters from R.T.O. Office.

¶29

6. It is 700 meters from Fly-over bridge.

¶30

7. It is 400 meters from Sweepers colony.

¶31

8. It is at a distance of 2 K.Ms. from the present old Nagar Panchayat office.

¶32

9. It is submitted that, the Regional Director of Town and Country planning and his staff inspected the subject site and selected it as suitable for construction of Nagar Panchayat office.”

¶33

None of the statements, made in the counter affidavit, are disputed by the petitioners. That apart, from the contents of paragraphs 7 and 8, it is clear that the proposed municipality building is not away from the city, as submitted and it is close from all the offices as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the counter. In any case, it is always open to the elected body of the municipality to take a decision, as the one taken in the present case, having regard to the convenience of all concerned. We do not find any reason to interfere with such decision of the municipality.

¶34

Hence, the PIL is dismissed.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶37

S.V. BHATT, J

¶38

08-06-2015

¶39

R.S.Rama Krishna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Rama Krishna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

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 S.B. Das, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Dr. C. L. Venkata Rao Vs State of A.P.

Karumanchi Siva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Mohd. Ghouse Vs State of Telangana

P. Lakshmi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

J.Bala Naveena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Development Organization for Socio Economic Change, Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing)

M/s.Spire Steels Private.Ltd Vs Union of India

M/s.Sammakka Sarakka Girijana Labour Contract Aided Vs Union of India

M/s. Balaji Lorry Transport, Vs M/s. Balaji Transport

Gareeb Guide (Voluntary Organization) Rep. by its Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary to

Smt. Radhika Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Mohd Abdul Raoof, Vs The State of Telangana