APHC010215042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10708/2025 Between: 1. VEERAMSETTY BRAMHAJI, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION DRIVER, RESIDENTS OF IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. MAHADASU DORABABU,, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION ELECTRICIAN,RESIDENTS OF IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. LAKKIMSETTY VEERANJANEYA ESWARA RAO, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC CERAMIC WORKER,RESIDENTS OF IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 4. PILLA SUBBA RAO,, S/O SATTIRAJU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION MASON WORKER, RESIDENTS OF IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. AMALAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AMALAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT KOTHAPETA. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBAJIPETA POLICE STATION, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction or (i) declaring the inaction of Respondents 1 to 4 in preventing unauthorized installation of a statue on the public road margin at Ambajipeta Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to direct Respondents 1 to 4 to immediately prevent any unauthorized installation of statues on the road margin or any other public utility area (iii) to direct Respondents 1 to 4 enforce G.O. Ms. No. 18 dated 04.01.2013 and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8519/2006, dated 18.01.2013 (iv) to direct Respondents 1 to 4 take appropriate action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and other laws applicable to public nuisance and obstruction (v) and to pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of petitioners Dated:21-04-2025 of the petitioners and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Suryachandra, learned counsel representing Sri N.ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri Bhagath Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the 5th respondent 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in preventing unauthorized installation of a statue on the public road margin at Ambajipeta Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners, permanent residents of Irusumanda Village, came to know that some individuals in the locality are making hectic efforts to install a statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on the road margin by following G.O.Ms.No.18, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 04.01.2013. 4. Sri Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the instructions of the Executive Engineer (Roads & Buildings). The operative portion of the instructions reads as follows: “..In this regard, it is submitted that no such statues were installed at the said location of the petitioner” The instructions further indicate that “No statues are installed at the said location of the petitioner”. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further contend that the authority came to know that no such attempts were made by any individual. 4 6. Thus, as is evident from the instructions, the relief sought by the petitioners has been addressed, and no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 27.06.2025 KA 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10708/2025 Dated 27.06.2025 KA