http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  781 of 2007

PETITIONER: Vema China Koteswara Rao

RESPONDENT: District Collector & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2007

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9225 of 2005)

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       Leave granted.         This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.2.2005 in Writ Petition No. 282  of 2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was delivered  on a writ petition filed as a ‘Public Interest Litigation’ to declare the  action of the respondent in permitting the third respondent to construct  and install the statue of his father, an Ex. MLA, as arbitrary and illegal  being contrary to GOMs No.393 dated 13.6.2000.   

A counter affidavit had been filed in the writ petition in which it  was stated that the respondents have followed the rules contained in  GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003  which superceded GOMs No.393 dated 13.6.2000.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition in  view of the GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated  8.4.2003.

We have perused the GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1)  Department, dated 8.4.2003.  Clause No.4 of the same states : "4. 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  Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Engineers  (R&B), Chairman/CEO, Local Municipal Body,  Superintending Engineers (PR), Superintending  Engineer (AP Transco) and the concerned Executive  Engineer (R&B) is mandatory.  This Committee  which may also draft if necessary representatives of  other Departments, should examine all aspects before  making any recommendation including possibility of  proposed statues obstructing the flow of traffic,  future expansion of roads and the design of the roads,  the water supply and sewerage pipe lines, electrical  and telephone wires and cables as well as the local

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

situation.  The size of the statue/monument, metal  used & the design should also be considered and a  site plan shall be prepared and approved by  committee before forwarding to the Government."               

It appears that a meeting of the Statue Committee was held in the  Collector’s chamber, Ongole on 22.11.2004 and we have perused the  Minutes of the said meeting.  Thereafter another meeting was held in  the Collector’s chamber, Ongole on 12.12.2004 and we have perused  the proceedings of the said meeting also.

In the meeting of the Statue Committee the Members agreed on  erection of the statue of late Vema Yellaiah, Ex. MLA and Ex.  Chairman, S.C. Corporation within the Mandal Complex site at  Chimakurthy.

In our opinion the said decision was in accordance with the  Clause 4 of GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated  8.4.2003.  Hence we cannot interfere.  It is well settled that there must  be judicial restraint regarding administrative decisions vide Tata  Cellular  vs.  Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that GOMs No.55,  Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 doest not authorize  individuals to erect a statue on Government premises but it  contemplates permission only for organizations.  We cannot accept this  submission.  It may be noted that GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1)  Department, dated 8.4.2003 refers to organizations only in para 5 of the  said GOMs which states : "The concerned organization who wants to  install/erect the statue/monuments should procure  land on payment of compensation to the concerned  land owners/concerned department as the case may."     A comparison of para 4 and para 5 of GOMs No.55, Transport,  R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 shows the difference between  the two.  Para 5 deals with land belonging to private persons on which  the statue is proposed to be erected.  Para 5 has nothing to do with land  belonging to the Government, in which case para 4 applies.  Hence so  far as land belonging to the Government is concerned the setting up of  a statue thereon is not restricted to organizations, and permission for  doing so can even be granted to individuals provided it is recommended  by the Statue Committee contemplated by para 4.  There is no dispute  that the Statue Committee has made the recommendation in this case.   

As regards the constitutional validity of GOMs No.55, Transport,  R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 the same has not been  challenged before us and hence we are leaving this question open.

For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed.