WP/31986/2010 of Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao Vs The Commissioner, Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

The petitioners claim to be the owners of land admeasuring anextent of Ac.0.24 ¼ cents situated at Piduguralla Village, GunturDistrict. It is stated that they are running a petrol retail outlet underlease from Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai. The petitionershave filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondents inconstructing the public toilets at the place other than the one approvedby the municipality vide resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008, asillegal.

Heard Sri B. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitionersand Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that PidugurallaNagara Municipality passed resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008 toconstruct toilets at three places, viz., 1) Janapadu Road Iceland centre;2) Pillutla Road Police Station Centre; and 3) Venkatewara MahalCinema Hall Centre. According to them, the 1[st] respondent is boundby the resolution of the Panchayat to ensure construction of toilets onlyat the said places and no other. The petitioners state that however therespondent is allowing construction at different places including theone at the petrol pump being run by the petitioners. It is also stated thatthere is some Government land available, which is under theoccupation of unauthorized persons, adjacent to the cinema theatreviz., Sri Jayalaxmi Picture Palace and the petitioners contend that thetoilets could be constructed there instead of at the petrol pump.

The learned Standing Counsel on instructions would state that resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008 was superseded by a subsequentresolution CR.No.95 dated 31.12.2009 changing the locations.Subsequent to resolution No.728 the respondent caused an inspectionthrough the Assistant Engineer and Sanitary Inspector, and the saidofficers after due enquiry in consultation with the public and the policeconcerned and also the Roads and Buildings Engineer, submitted areport stating that the present location is more useful to the public.Upon such report, the subsequent resolution CR.No.95 was adoptedto shift the construction of toilets at the present site. It is submitted thatthe present site is centrally located and adjacent to two bus-stops,Cinema halls and business establishments. Therefore the learnedStanding Counsel would submit that the construction was shifted to thepresent site in the interest of public and the same cannot be faulted.

Having considered the rival contentions, it may be mentionedthat the sole substantive contention on behalf of the petitioners is thatthe respondent has permitted construction of toilets violating resolutionNo.728 dated 31.07.2008 of the Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat. Butthe said resolution has been superseded by a later resolutionCR.No.95, dated 31.12.2009. The very foundation on which this writpetition has been filed is therefore fizzled and the petitioner cannotcomplaint violation of any resolution by the respondent. Further, thepetitioner also cannot be here to say that the toilets should beconstructed at a particular place since the requirement and the locationof such facilities are within the domain of the respondent. The learnedStanding Counsel has also clarified that the construction is beingmade duly leaving 40 feet for thoroughfare to the petrol pump. In thatview of the matter, there are no merits in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

________________