Telangana High Court
WP/19626/2010 of Pachimalla Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.19626 of 2010 Date : 30-12-2010 Between: Pachimalla Venkata Ramana and others .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari at Kakinada and others .. Respondents Counsel for
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.19626 of 2010
Date : 30-12-2010
Between:
Pachimalla Venkata Ramana
and others
.. Petitioners
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its District Collector(Panchayat Wing), East Godavari at Kakinada and others
.. Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri G.Elisha, Standing Counsel The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in constructing community hall over roadmargin covering drainage canal in Sy.No.115/10 of S.C. Colony,Kuthukuluru village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District asillegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequentialdirection not to proceed with the construction.
I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners and Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel forrespondent No.3.
The petitioners are residents of S.C. colony, Kuthukuluruvillage. They felt aggrieved by the proposed construction of thecommunity hall in Sy.No.115/3 mainly on the ground that the siteover which the community hall is proposed to be constructed is roadmargin and the proposed construction will obstruct the drainagecanal.
In the counter affidavit filed along with the vacate-stayapplication, the Panchayath Secretary of respondent No.3 has interalia stated that respondent No.3-Gram Panchayath has passedresolution No.312, dated 23-3-2010 for construction of a communityhall over the above mentioned land and that the same was handedover to the Panchayath Raj Engineering Department forconstruction. It is further stated that the community hall is meant forpeople belonging to the Schedule Caste community and the saiddecision was taken on the request of the majority of the people of theSchedule Caste colony. While denying that the proposed site is partof road margin, it is stated that the existing drain has been diverted and a new drain is formed for free flow of drain water and that theWrit Petition is filed only due to political reasons.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed outcontradiction between the averments contained in paras 3 and 7 tothe effect that in the former para it is stated that the existing drainwill be filled up and a new diversion drain will be formed while in thelatter para it is averred that a new drain has already been formed bydiverting the present drain.
In my opinion, construction of the community hall is in publicinterest. Unless the decision of the respondents is either arbitrary ormala fide or the same is actuated by extraneous considerations, thisCourt seldom interferes with such a decision taken by theadministrative functionaries. The respondents have denied anyinconvenience on account of construction of a new community hallas alleged by the petitioners. While there is some ambiguity withrespect to the aspect as to whether the new drain has already beenformed, that by itself cannot be a ground to stall construction of thecommunity hall. The respondents are directed to ensure that if theexisting drain has not been diverted and a new drain is not formed sofar, they shall take immediate steps for execution of the said worksand ensure that they are completed within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already done.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposedof.
Date: 30-12-2010AM
__________________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J