JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent 2 to 4 and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent Narasaraopeta Municipality.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:

“……declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein in granting permission to the installation of statute of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy in Mayuri Centre located near bus standing of Narasaraopet of Palnadu District even though there is a specific order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India not to grant any permission for installation of any statute or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in S.L.P.(c) No.8519 of 2006 dated 18.01.2013 as illegal, arbitrary.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action on the part of the respondents in giving permissions for erection of Dr. Y.S.R. Rajasekhar Reddy statute in Mayuri Centre located near bus stand of Narasaraopet of Palnadu District, in which there are about ten structures also erected without having any permissions from the respondent- authorities contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 8519/2006 dated 18.01.2013 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2012.

4. He further submits that on 17.08.2022 at Mayuri Centre located near bus stand of Narasaraopet of Palnadu District which is very busy area with people and traffic, bhoomipooja has been done for erection of statute of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy by removing the signal lights for installation of the statute in the public street, against which when the petitioner approached the 5 th respondent, it was informed that there was resolution of the then Chair Person of such Municipality in the year 2010 granting permission for installation of the statute at the place in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated

18.01.2013, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued

G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013, but the same is not being adhered.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not disputed the aforesaid Government Order. As also the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, however, further submits that the petitioner is infact raising the public grievance and he should approach in the public interest litigation before the appropriate Bench.

8. The court finds that the petitioner has raised the grievance against the respondent authorities including the Municipality which has granted permission in the year 2010 as alleged in the writ petition. The matter pertains to the municipalities and once the action of the municipality is questioned being violative of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter is cognizable by this bench which is having roaster pertaining to the municipal corporation municipality matters.

9. In the case of Union of India and another v State of Gujarat and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s)

8519/2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India I.A.No.10 of 2012

passed the order dated 18.01.2013 which is reproduced as under:

“ORDER: I.A. No. 10 of 2012 in S.L.P. (C) No. 8519 of 2006:

1. We have heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for the State of Kerala.

2. Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for the State of Kerala placed before us a copy of the order dated September 7, 2011 passed by the Government of Kerala granting permission for installation of statue of late Sh