SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, A.V. Sesha Sai, JJ.
Y. Ramakrishna, S/o. Narasimha Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No.27 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2023

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the legal provisions and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the installation and removal of statues in public spaces.

Headnote:

Statues - Public Figures - G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-1) Department, dated 18.02.2013 - The court discussed the issue of installation, removal, and re-installation of statues of public figures in a specific location, highlighting the legal provisions and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The court found that while the decision to remove the statues causing traffic congestion may be justified, their re-location to a public utility space may not be permissible as per the legal provisions and directions.

Fact of the Case:

The petition highlighted the issue of installation, removal, and re-installation of statues of public figures in a specific location, along with the alleged political motivations behind the proposed removal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision to remove the statues causing traffic congestion may be justified, but their re-location to a public utility space may not be permissible. The court also rejected the argument that the decision to remove the statues was politically motivated.

Issues: The issues included the proposed removal of statues of public figures, the alleged political motivations behind the removal, and the installation of a specific statue in violation of legal directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the legal provisions and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the installation and removal of statues in public spaces.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition (PIL) was closed with no costs, and the parties were directed to await the final disposal of the pending Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The court also emphasized the need to follow the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Government Order dated 18.02.2013.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed highlighting the issue with regard to installation, removal and re-installation of the statutes of public figures in Gandhi Centre, Nandigama Municipality, NTR District.

2. The petitioner claims that statues of public figures and leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Rajiv Gandhi, etc., were installed in a traffic island at a four road junction called Gandhi Centre. It is stated that all around the said island, there is sufficient space for free flow of traffic and pedestrian movement and that the presence of the statues do not cause any inconvenience to the public. It is stated that the said statutes are proposed to be removed from the said traffic island and reinstalled in public spaces, one of which has been identified as Government General Hospital, Nandigama. It is alleged that the removal of the statues is proposed on account of nothing but political considerations.

Another issue that has been highlighted is that the authorities are not removing the statue of Dr. Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, which was installed in the year 2010 on the Tahsildar office road margin and renovated in the year 2020 with large pylon on the road margin, which extended into public utility space belonging to Tahsildar’s office in Gandhi Centre Junction, thus causing inconvenience to the public at large.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to an order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in S.L.P. (C) No.8519 of 2006, wherein the following direction has been issued:

    “4. Until further orders, we direct that the status-quo, as obtaining today, shall be maintained in all respects by all concerned with regard to the Triangle Island where statue of late Shri N.Sundaran Nadar has been permitted to be sanctioned. We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structures in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities.

5. The above order shall also apply to all other states and union territories. The concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator shall ensure compliance of the above order.”

The directions afore-mentioned were issued in the context of challenge to an order passed by the Government of Kerala which granted permission for installation of statue of late Shri N.Sundaran Nadar, who was Ex-Deputy Speaker of Kerala Legislative Assembly on the National Highway.

4. Before issuance of afore-mentioned direction, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh before bifurcation vide G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, had envisaged that no new statues should be permitted for erection on any R & B roads and that if statues/monuments are to be located, it should be done so only on large traffic islands, public gardens, parks, premises of Government buildings, town halls or places of public importance. The Government Order also envisaged that in case any approval of Government is required, recommendation by a Statue Committee headed by the District Collector and comprising of Superintendent of Police, Superintending Engineers (R&B), Chairman/CEO, Local Municipal Body, Superintending Engineers (PR), Superintending Engineer (AP Transco) and the concerned Executive Engineer (R&B) was required as mandatory.

5. However, subsequently as a sequel to the aforementioned direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of order dated 18.01.2013, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-1) Department, dated 18.02.2013, which envisages as under:

    “In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Government hereby decide not t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top