1 APHC010353062020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23444/2020 Between: 1. MANNAM SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. SEETAYYA AGE 49 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND PROVISIONS SHOP R/O. D. NO. 2-94, KARUMANCHI VILLAGE SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAVALYAPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. THE KARUMANCHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARUMANCHI, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in allowing to install Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy Statue on the margin of public road situated in front of the petitioner's house bearing H. No. 2-94, Karumanchi Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 18, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Roads-1) Department dated 18.02.2013, against to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct respondents not to allow to install any statue or construction of any structure in the margin of public road situated in front of petitioner's house bearing H. No. 2-94, Karumanchi Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. I KOTI REDDY 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.23444 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for 5th Respondent – Gram Panchayat and perused the material placed on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner of the house bearing No.2-94, Karumanchi Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. While so, Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are allowing the villagers to install a statue at the road margin of the public road situated in front of the petitioner’s house is contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-1) Department, dated 18.02.2013. Hence the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.27036 of 2022, dated 30.08.2022 which reads as follows: 4 “In the case of Union of India and another v State of Gujarat and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 8519/2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India I.A.No.10 of 2012 passed the order dated 18.01.2013 which is reproduced as under: “ORDER: I.A. No. 10 of 2012 in S.L.P. (C) No. 8519 of 2006 1. We have heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for the State of Kerala. 2. Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for the State of Kerala placed before us a copy of the order dated September 7, 2011 passed by the Government of Kerala granting permission for installation of statue of late Shri N. Sundaran Nadar, Ex-Deputy Speaker of Kerala Legislative Assembly near to Neyyattinkara – Poovar Road in the curve turning to the KSRTC Bus Stand Neyyattinkara in the Kanyakumari National Highway near bus stand. 3. We have our doubt whether such permission could have been granted by the State Government for installation of statue on the national highway. 4. Until further orders, we direct that the status quo, as obtaining today, shall be maintained in all respects by all concerned with regard to the Triangle Island where statue of late Shri N. Sundaran Nadar has been permitted to be sanctioned. We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities. 5. The above order shall also apply to all other 6 states and union territories. The concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator shall ensure compliance of the above order.” 12. The G.O.Ms.No.18 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-1) Department dated 18.02.2013 on the subject of installation/erection of statute on roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh-compliance of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C ) No.8519/2006, also reads as under: 5 “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT R & B – Installation / erection of statues / monuments on any roads in the State of A.P. – Compliance of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.8519/2006 – Orders – Issued. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRANSPORT, ROADS & BUILDINGS (ROADS-1) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No. 18 1 Dated:18-02-2013 Read the following:- 1. G.O.Ms.No. 55, TR & B (R-1) Dept., Dt.8-4-2003.. 2. Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.8519/2006, Dt.18-1-2013. @@@ ORDER: In the G.O., first read above, instructions have been issued that no new statues should be permitted for erection on any R&B roads. If Statues / Monuments are unavoidable on roads, they should be located only on large traffic islands, public gardens, parks, premises of Government buildings, town halls or places of public importance. In case any approval of Government is required, recommendation by a Statue Committee headed by the District Collector and comprising of Superintendent of Police, SE (R&B), Chairman / CEO, Local Municipal body, SE (PR), S.E. (AP Transco) and the concerned E.E. (R&B) is mandatory. 2. In the reference second read above, the Supreme Court of India, have passed the following orders:- “We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities. The above order shall also apply to all other States and Union Territories. The concerned Chief Secretary / Administrator shall ensure compliance of the above order.” 3. In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Government hereby decide not to grant permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. 4. All the State Level and District Level Officers mentioned in the address entry are requested to ensure strict compliance of the above orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) MINNIE MATHEW CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.” Without permission from the District Level Committee as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.18 as well as ratio laid down by 6 Hob’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. State of Gujarat and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s)8519/2006, no statue can be permitted to erect at any public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th Respondent furnished written instructions submitted by the 5th respondent wherein it is stated as under:  “It is further submitted that, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.55, R&B, dated 08.08.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.18, R&B, dated 18.02.2013, a proposal was sent to the District Collector, Guntur (Chairman of District level Statue Committee) by the then District Panchayat Officer for the erection of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy’s statue at Survey No.430, Janda Chettu Centre, Karumanchi Gram Panchayat, Savalyapuram Mandal, along with the Panchayat Resolution dated 04.12.2020.  While the matter stood thus, the petitioner, Sri Mannam Srinivasa Rao, S/o Seetaiah, resident of Karumanchi Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, submitted a representation to the District Collector, Guntur requesting not to grant permission for the erection of the statue at Sy.No.430, Janda Chettu Centre, Karumanchi Gram Panchayat, stating that it would affect his right of access and frontage.  It is respectfully submitted that, as on date, no orders have been issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur (now Palnadu District) for the erection of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy’s statue on the margin of the public road in front of the petitioner’s house bearing Door No.2-94, Karumanchi Gram Panchayat, Savalyapuram Mandal.  Currently, there is no statue or any structure in front of the petitioner’s house 5. He further submits that in view of no permission or plan was granted for erection of statue by the 2nd respondent herein as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013, the respondents not allowed any erection of statue as alleged by the petitioner. He further stated that no statue was erected at the 7 subject place as contended by the petitioner. Thus he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no statue can be erected without any express permission or plan to be granted by District Level Committee i.e., the 2nd Respondent herein. In the case on hand, admittedly there is no permission and the proposed erection of statue is certainly contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.18. 7. For the reasons stated as above, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents not to allow any erection of statue what-so-ever at the subject place. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 14.10.2025 krk 8 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.23444 of 2020 DT: 14.10.2025 krk 90