This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Municipality's construction of a compound wall for a children's park. The court held that providing a park for communal purposes differs from providing parking and did not direct the respondents to consider the representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4005 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality, from oral instructions and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1 and perused the prayer in the writ petition with supporting affidavit and the other material on record.
“……to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent in trying to Construction of Children Park in the Housing Board Colony in Sy.Nos.299, 300 situated in the Amalapuram Municipal Area of East Godavari District, without considering the representation dated 28.11.2017 and contrary to the Rule 53 of A.P. Building Rules 2017 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Rule 53 of A.P. Building Rules 2017 and contrary to the Provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and consequentially direct the respondents to follow the A.P. Building Rules and the Provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and pass order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”
Dr.SSRB, J W.P.No.4005 of 2018
2
building sites/plots fixed as a minimum requirement and table 14 and 14A clause (2) also speaks in this regard of category B1 with road width under sub clause (3) for Non-High Rise (Residential) buildings including Group Housing with cellar/stilt and its permissibility in all the requirement of 33 feet road to be left and without providing a space for parking of vehicles before Children Park and for the vehicles to come to the park, the 2nd respondent is proposing to construct compound wall to the Children Park to develop the park, which is in front of the houses of the petitioners, is the core of the contention. It is not a case of the petitioners that the Housing Board layout is now developed pursuant to 2017 Rules. Even the very writ petition averments show the houses are in existence of the Housing Board layout for more than 20 years. Once such is the case, the area of the roads to be left and provided already were as per those specifications.
Dr.SSRB, J W.P.No.4005 of 2018
3
in this regard is also untenable, much less to consider or direction to consider. So far as the other submission that vehicles are parking around the houses of the petitioners on the public road blocking their access, remedy is left open to them to approach the Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. to abate the public nuisance and if at all further required from any breach of peace to invoke the provisions of Section 106 to 116 of the Cr.P.C. through police to initiate proceedings for breach of peace and tranquillity.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs. ____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 19th February 2018 mar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the construction of a compound wall for a children's park without considering a representation is illegal.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to an objection regarding parking space for a gratuitous children's park.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
Municipality
Municipal Administration
B. Siva Sankara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
