Back
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
T Naresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioners had approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction of the official respondents in removing a statue which was sought to be set up near house of the petitioners.
2. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer has submitted written instructions to the learned Standing Counsel on 14.02.2023. In these written instructions it is stated that the statue has been removed and that the platform built for housing the statue has also been demolished. The learned counsel for the petitioners also admits the same.
3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
The court cannot adjudicate ownership disputes under Article 226 and emphasizes the need for civil court remedies for such matters.
The installation of statues by municipal authorities falls within their discretionary powers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, and such actions are justified when they serve public saf....
The court emphasized the distinction between personal and public interest in PIL petitions and highlighted the authority of local bodies to address issues such as the placement of statues and traffic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
