Disposed

Sudanagunta Murali Krishna v. The District Collector

Telangana HC1 Jun 2015WP/28447/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the High Court disposed of a writ petition complaining about encroachment on a public road for a statue. The Court noted the States had removed unauthorized displays and framed guidelines to prevent future occurrences, thus removing any further grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in view of the States' compliance with court directions to remove unauthorized displays.

Sudanagunta Murali Krishna Vs The District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 28447 OF 2008

¶5

01-06-2015

¶6

Between: Sudanagunta Murali Krishna … Petitioner And

¶7

The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and six others … Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶9

AND

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 28447 OF 2008

¶12

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

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, is filed by the petitioner challenging the activity of respondent No. 4 – Mukthinuthalapadu Gram Panchayat and respondent No. 5 – Throvagunta Gram Panchayat in digging pits for installation of a statue with a platform by encroaching to the extent of 15 feet on the road leading from National Highway No.5 to Mukthinuthapadu and Gudimillapadu villages, Prakasam District.

¶15

After filing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the alleged encroachment was removed by the concerned authority and the petitioner does not have any grievance as of now. Then our attention was invited to the order passed by this Court dated 22-12-2014, whereby this Court suo motu expanded the scope of the petition. The order dated 22-12-2014 reads thus:

¶16

“We think this is a matter of high public importance. In our constitutional democracy there cannot be any personality cult, so, some measure has to be taken and we find a support from the judicial pronouncement in the case of Immadisetty Anantham vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad and others (1989 (2) ALT 390). In this judgment the learned Judge has referred to an earlier decision passed by this Court in the case of S. Someswara Rao vs. Tirupathamma (1988 (2) (HC) APLJ 469).

¶17

In the latter judgment the learned Judges referred the observations made by a third Judge before whom the matter was placed on difference of opinions having been found observed as follows.

¶18

“No person can be allowed to occupy a portion of a public road, a highway, or even a public pathway, and argue that even after his encroachment there is sufficient space left for public to pass by. He cannot be the Judge of the requirements of the public, nor can be decide for himself what extent must be left for public use and what extent must be occupied by him. At this rate, anybody will be free to occupy a potion of such public streets, highways and roads with the spacious argument that there is still space left for public to pass by. Slowly these encroachments may become permanent. It is evident that such a course cannot be permitted. It is true that Section 39 expressly speaks of a discretion in the Court in the matter of granting a mandatory injunction; but the said discretion has to be exercised in

¶19

accordance with law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case. May be that granting a mandatory injunction would result in eviction of the poor people living in the huts, or the displacement of the school which is said to be running there for the last several decades but that can be taken care of by making appropriate directions.”

¶20

Thereafter, in para 23 it is said as follows:

¶21

“(i) A highway, public street or pathway is meant for passing and repassing and right of passage of a user extends to every part and portion of it, so no portion of it can be used for purpose other than the one for which it is meant.

¶22

(ii) Even though a high way, a public street and public pathway vest in the municipality, it has only the right to manage and maintain the same. It cannot raise any structure thereon or on any part of it nor can it allow it to be used for raising any structure so as to interfere with the right of passage of the public.

¶23

(iii) The user of the highway, public street, pathway, as the case may be, is not only entitled to seek prohibitory injunction against any individual or institution restraining it from interfering with his right of passage but is also entitled to mandatory injunction for removal of any obstruction or structure already made which in any way interferes with his right of free passage.”

¶24

Taking que of the aforesaid observations, we feel that both the Governments have to come forward with a proposal about steps they are going to take from preventing erection of statues, cut out of any person using public places viz., public road, park, other places like nature.

¶25

In this case it has been noticed that a statue of political personality was to be erected on the road and it was stayed by this Court. It is common knowledge that almost everywhere whenever any occasion arises the photos and images of personal individuals and also the statues are being erected on the public place for display. Whether the public places and roads should be occupied and encroached in this way or not are debatable issues. Therefore, we add State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, represented by their respective Chief Secretaries, as party respondents in this matter. We require both the learned Advocate General to appear in this matter.

¶26

Matter to appear on 26.12.2014.

¶27

Let a copy of this order be communicated by the registry to the learned Advocate General of both the States.”

¶28

Thereafter, from time to time this Court issued directions for removal of unauthorised

¶29

cutouts, flexies, hoardings, banners and posters. After removal of them, as per the directions issued by this Court, the concerned respondents placed status reports on record and also filed affidavits stating so.

¶30

We have perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Telangana by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 16-04-2015. The relevant statements made on affidavit in paragraphs 4 to 8 read thus:

¶31

“4. The Hon’ble High Court has made the following order dated 26.12.2014:

¶32

“We are happy to note that the problem which we had pointed in this matter has already been taken care of by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, following the Supreme Court orders, by issuing a Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.18, Dt:18.02.2013. It appears the Government Orders covers not only statues, but also construction of any such structure, including cutouts, flexi boards etc.

¶33

We direct the Commissioner of Police in metropolitan cities, respective municipal authorities, Director General of Police and Superintendents of Police of both the States to implement the aforesaid Government Order. Whole doing so, they shall identify the statues, cutouts, flexi boards and photos installed illegally and in violation of the Government orders. After doing that, the authorities shall remove them immediately and they must see that there is no deviation of this Government Order.

¶34

Since the aforesaid Government Order was passed on 18.02.2013 it can be termed to be an existing law as on the appointed day and this is still binding upon both the States and their officials.”

¶35

5. On filing of the reports by various authorities, the Hon’ble High Court has made the following order dated 12.02.2015:

¶36

“The said reports will detail the number and nature of cutouts, flexies and posters etc which have been permitted; the details of the persons who have sought such permission; and also the details of the persons whose images are depicted in the said cutouts, flexies, posters etc. These reports shall be filed by the next date of hearing.”

¶37

6. Accordingly, a compliance report with regard to the GHMC area and other Urban Local Bodies was submitted to the Hon’ble High Court on 04.03.2015 and the Hon’ble High Court has made the following order dated 25.03.2015:

¶38

“However, we feel that there cannot be any impossibility to implement our

¶39

order. We give fortnights time to both the State Governments to remove all the cutouts, posters, banners and statues, which are still subsisting. In case of failure to do so, the Court will find out its own mechanism for implementation its order.”

¶40

7. It is submitted that, as regards Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation territorial limits, the Commissioner, GHMC has initiated special drivers with special teams and an enforcement vehicle for each Circle from 13.03.2015 onwards and has removed 4807 unauthorised flexis, banners, posters and cutouts, in addition to the 17,468 removed earlier until 05.03.2015. Further, enforcement teams constituted at the Circle level are continuously taking up the removal of unauthorized flexis, banners, posters and cutouts within 24 hours of receiving information about unauthorized display.

¶41

Further, the Government has also received the following proposals/action plan from the Commissioner, GHMC:

¶42

“ Regulation of flexis printers

¶43

Identification of the flexi printing agencies and directing them not to print materials without clear proof of permission.

¶44

Linking the printing agencies with Trade Lincense for easy identification.

¶45

Issuing guidelines for printing of flexis with date, printers name, phone number, permission number along with period of permission to be displayed on the flexis printed.

¶46

Action to be initiated against printing agencies also in case of violations. Joint meetings and joint actions by GHMC and Police.

¶47

Meeting with all Political Parties and sensitizing the party workers and leaders not to erect authorized flexis, banners, posters and cutouts.

¶48

Developing of daily reporting format from field staff to Deputy Commissioner and from Deputy Commissioner to Head Office.

¶49

Development of web screen for according online permission and recording of the removals on daily basis.

¶50

The same will be duly notified by the Commissioner, GHMC in due course of time with appropriate additions and changes as may be required.”

¶51

8. Further, the Government is in the process of framing strict guidelines and constituting new enforcement teams within a few days, to address menace of the installation of statutes, flexies, posters and cutouts in future. ”

¶52

Similarly, a report on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh is also placed on record duly signed by the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, in the form of affidavit. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit dated 22-04-2015 filed on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh read thus:

¶53

“7. In this context, in compliance of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, again instructions were issued to all the Commissioners of ULBs to verify the unauthorized erection of cutouts, flexies and posters and remove all the unauthorized erections immediately and furnish certified information on the removal of all unauthorized erections. Accordingly, all the Municipal Commissioners have reported that all the unauthorized cutouts, flexies and posters/photos were removed and furnished certificates to that effect duly indicating the number of such unauthorized cutouts, flexies and posters were removed.

¶54

8. In continuation of the earlier compliance report submitted before the Hon’ble High Court on behalf of the Respondent No.6, I humbly submit that as per the reports received from the Commissioners of ULBs, the details of authorized and unauthorized cutouts, flexies and posters/photos and their status are as follows:

¶55

Description	Number
1. Number of authorized erections identified	10851
2. Number of unauthorized erections identified	16797
Total authorized and unauthorized erections identified (1+2)	27648

¶56

9. All 16797 Nos. of unauthorized cutouts (733 Nos.), flexies (4853 Nos.) and posters (11211 Nos.) were removed. The ULB-wise details are shown in Annexure-I. In respect of authorized erections of cutouts, flexies and posters, out of total 10851 Nos., a total of 5595 ( 5 Nos. of cutouts, 496 Nos. of flexies and 5094 Nos. of posters/photos) are removed and a total No. of 5256 (62 Nos. of cutouts, 544 Nos. of flexies and 4650 Nos. of posters/photos) are yet to be removed, and the period of permission is not yet completed. It will be removed soon after expiry of the validity period of the permission accorded subject to renewal. The ULB-wise details are submitted in Annexure-II.

¶57

10. Further, it is humbly submitted that in order to curb the unauthorized

¶58

erection of the cutouts , flexies and posters/photos, all the Commissioners of the Urban Local Bodies in the State have been instructed to constitute teams in their respective ULBs to have regular check on the said erections. Adhering to the said instructions, the Commissioners of the ULBs have constituted the teams duly giving specific mandate of regular vigilant on the matter.”

¶59

From a perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of both the State Governments, we are satisfied that they have taken all the steps for removing the cutouts, flexies, hoardings, banners and posters and also taken further steps to prevent their display in future.

¶60

Keeping that in view, we do not find any reason to keep this petition pending any further. We record and accept all the statements made on affidavits, on behalf of both the State Governments and we hope and trust that both the State Governments shall ensure that no unauthorised cutouts, flexies, hoardings, banners and posters are displayed and if any complaint is made by any citizen, they shall take immediate steps to remove such unauthorised cutouts, flexies, hoardings, banners and posters forthwith.

¶61

With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition.

¶62

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶64

S.V. BHATT, J

¶65

01-06-2015

¶66