IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11658 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Nadimpalli Anupama, W/o Venkata Satya Sai Subbaraju, R/o Saketh Nilayam, 5-4-102/11, Vaddigudem, Amalapuram Municipality, Amalapuram Town, Dr. B.R.A. Konaseema District. (Erstwhile East Godavari District). ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The District Collector, Dr. B.R.A. Konaseema District, Amalapuram. (Erstwhile East Godavari District) 3. The Amalapuram Municipality, Rep. By its Commissioner, Amalapuram. (Erstwhile East Godavari District) 4. The Chairperson, , Statue Committee, O/o District Collector, Dr. B.R.A. Konaseema District Amalapuram. (Erstwhile East Godavari District) ...Respondents 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, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed installation of a statue in front of my property situated in Door No. 5-3-5/1, Gokhale Center, College Road Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.A Konaseema District, erstwhile East Godavari District, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authorities and without issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to forbear from proceeding with any construction or installation of the statue in front of the petitioners property until due process is followed and the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of hearing. lA 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 stay all further proceedings regarding the proposal of installation of statue pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 4; GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: 1 Oan APHC010218792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11658/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Smt. Nadimpalli Anupama AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PATANJAL1 PAMIDIGHANTAM Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following; 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11658 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the proposed installation of a statue in front of the property of the Petitioner in D.No.5- Gokhale Center, College Road, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.A. Konaseema District, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 issued by R & B Department as illegal and arbitrary. 3-5/1 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the house referred above having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dated 20.02.2013. Thereafter, she made further constructions in accordance with the building permissions. While so, a statue was proposed to be installed in front of the Petitioner’s house abutting National Highway 216 and as the same would be obstructing her free access to the property in question, the Petitioner had given representations to the Respondent Authorities objecting to the same. As the representations were not being considered and as there was imminent threat of installation of statue, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Roads-1) Department, I 3 dated 18.02.2013, wherein no statues were permitted in public roads-, pavements, sideways and any other public utility place. The learned counsel further submits that a statue is proposed to be installed in front of the property contrary to G.O.Ms.No.18. The learned Counsel submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.18 was issued pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP © 8519 of 2006, dated 18.01.2023. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Municipality passed on the Written Instructions signed by the Municipal Commissioner, Amalapuram Municipality, wherein it is mentioned that on the basis of the Council Resolution No.81, dated 06.01.2021 of the Municipal Council, Amalapuram, the then Municipal Commissioner Amalapuram, had addressed a Letter vide ROC No.736/2020-G1, dated 29.01.2021 to the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari, to accord permission from Statues Committee. It is further mentioned that no permission has been accorded till date. 5. In the Written Instructions, it is further mentioned that on the left side of the Petitioner’s building, there is existing bus shelter and considering the width of the road ( Gokhale Marg), the erection of statue is not possible on that side. It further mentioned that on the right side of the said bus shelter ends in the middle front part of the Petitioner’s building and therefore, it would not be correct to install the statue on 4 either side of the bus shelter. It is also mentioned that on the front side of the bus shelter, there is no possibility as it falls in the existing 80 feet road. It is further mentioned that no statue will be installed without approval of the competent authority. 6. Considering the factual statement of the Respondent Authorities that it is not feasible to install a statue in front of the Petitioner and further that no statue would be installed without approval of competent authority, the grievance of the Petitioner is assuaged. 7. Written Instructions are placed on record. Recording the Written Instructions of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Municipality, this Writ Petition is closed. No 8. order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. / Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^ %(r- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11658 of 2025 I 2 ^ may 2025 o C9 CLOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS