IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4465 OF 2018

06^th March, 2026 Between:

Bathula Venkatesham Goud.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and 5 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not consider the representation dt 07.12.20217 given by the petitioners to remove the statue illegally erected by the unknown persons in House bearing.no 29-887 in Sy.No 325 and 326 situated at Vinayaka Nagar Neredmet, Malkajigiri Mandal, Medichel District as being illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, unjust, improper, contrary to law and in violation of Art.14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to remove the statue illegally errected by the unknown persons in house bearing.no 29-887 in Sy.No 325 and 326 situated at Vinayaka Nagar Neredmet, Malkajigiri Mandal, Medichel District and pass.........”

2. Heard Mr.O.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 07.12.2017 to the respondent authorities seeking removal of a statue allegedly erected by unknown persons in the petition mentioned premises. As no action has been taken on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the directions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 08.04.2003 pertain to statues erected in public places. He fairly submits that since the statue in question was erected in private premises/property, no permission is required, and therefore such erection cannot be treated as illegal. He further submits that when the petitioner seeks removal of a statue erected within the premises of his own property, and when the pleadings themselves indicate the existence of civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for removal of the statue may not be proper. He also contends that the petitioner has not availed the other statutory remedies available under law. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner seeks removal of a statue which was allegedly erected by unknown persons in private premises. The explanation offered by the respondents indicates that, for erection of a statue in private property, no prior permission is required, and therefore the same cannot be treated as illegal so as to warrant executive action.

7. The petitioner’s reference to communications addressed to the Commissioner of Police and the GHMC does not disclose any statutory provision entitling the petitioner to seek a direction for removal of the said statue. Additionally, reference is made to disputes between the petitioner and certain unofficial respondents, who are not parties before this Court.

8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that, in the absence of any enforceable statutory right or obligation requiring the respondent authorities to take action for removal of the statue, issuance of a direction as sought for cannot be considered appropriate. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedies available under law for redressal of his grievance.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.03.2026 mmr

4927 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 4465 of 2018 Dated: 06.03.2026 mmr