Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

VEMA CHINA KOTESWARA RAO versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Decided
15 February 2007
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 741 · 2007 INSC 151
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 742, margin D

2

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.2.2005 in Writ Petition No.

p. 742, margin D

3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

p. 742, margin D

4

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

p. 742, margin E

5

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

p. 742, margin F

6

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

p. 742, margin G

7

We have perused the GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) dated 8.4.2003. Clause No.4 of the same states : "4. If statues/monuments are unavoidable on roads, 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), Chainnan/ 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 ofother 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 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 fJrwarding to the Government."

pp. 742–743, margin G

8

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.

p. 743, margin D

9

In the meeting of the Statue Committee the Members agreed on erection of the statue oflate Verna Yellaiah, Ex. MLA and Ex. Chairman, S.C. Corporation within the Manda! Complex site at Chimakurthy.

p. 743, margin E

10

In our opinion the said decision was in accordance with the Clause 4 ofGOMs 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 v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 11.

p. 743, margin E

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 GO Ms 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/ A "' monuments should procure land on payment of compensation to the concerned land owners/concerned department. as the case may."

pp. 743–744, margin F

12

A comparison of para 4 and para 5 ofGOMs 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.

p. 744

13

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 anp hence we are leaving this question open.

p. 744, margin C

14

For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

p. 744, margin C