IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10106 of 2008 Between: Kapu, Telaga, Vantari, Balija Seva Sangham Registered No. 531/95 Rep. by its Authorized Member Puppala Anjaneyulu S/o. Late Venkanna aged 45 years, Occ: Business H.No. 13-118/C, Patimeeda , Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Roads & Buildings, Secretariat, Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (R & B) Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, A.P. 3 The Deputy Exeuctive Engineer (R & B) Gudivada, Krishna District,A.P. 4 The Assistant Executive Engineer ( R & B) North, Gudivada,Krishna District, A.P. 5 N. Chintayya S/o. Pentayya 33rd ward, Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the cancellation of arch permission issued by the 2nd respondent herein vide his Office Letter No.2368/JTO3/2007 dt. 17-4-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of natural justice, equity and conscience besides also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the same by restoring the arch permission order granted in favour of the petitioner Vide Letter No. 2368/JTO3/2007 dt. 10-1-2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI B.SREE RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10106 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the letter of the second respondent addressed to the fifth respondent permitting him to construct Mukhadwaram (entrance arch) in the name of Goddess Kanaka Durgamma Devasatanam in 34th Ward. While doing so, second respondent cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner vide letter No.1063/JTO2/05, dated 10.01.2007, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act vide Registered No.531/95. It has constructed Marriage Function Hall, namely, Sri Rayala Apparao, Nagaratnamma Kapuvari Kalyanamandapam, at Neelamahal Road, Gudivada. The Society statedly has also installed statue of Abhayanjaneya Swamy Varu, and constructed a temple of Sri Rama Sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy varu in the said Kalyanamandapam. The petitioner approached the second respondent on 25.11.2006 seeking permission for construction of entrance arch. By a communication dated 10.01.2007, second respondent accorded permission to construct arch in consultation with third respondent. It appears, fifth respondent, who is 33rd Ward member of Gudivada Municipality, made an application on 17.04.2008 requesting permission for construction of entrance arch in the name of Goddess Kanaka Durgamma Devastanam. While canceling permission earlier granted to the petitioner, permission was accorded to fifth respondent by the impugned order. This is assailed in the writ petition. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit. Fifth respondent also filed counter affidavit along with W.V.M.P.No.2428 of 2008. Fifth respondent states that the temple of Kanakadurga Ammavaru was constructed fifty years ago, and is visited by people far and near. All the devotees expressed their desire to construct the entrance arch. Being the ward member, he proposed construction of the arch, and second respondent after considering the representation accorded permission. He opposed construction of arch by the petitioner on the ground that it is untenable. He also alleges that Sri Rama Sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy vari temple is meant for the members of petitioner society, and general public have no access to the same. There is also no regular worship in the temple. According to him, construction of arch in the name of Goddess Kanaka Durgamma Devastanam is appropriate. Second respondent in the counter affidavit while admitting the earlier permission granted, also states that the impugned order was issued duly canceling the permission granted to the petitioner as they failed to construct any arch. However, having regard to the dispute with regard to construction of arch between two rival groups i.e., petitioner society and temple devotees, he passed orders in Memo No.2368/JTO3/2008, dated 26.04.2008, keeping the impugned order in abeyance. It is also further stated as follows. It is submitted that while the matter stood thus there was a dispute in regard to the construction of Arch on the said place between two rival groups i.e., the petitioner association and the temple devotees and having coming to the knowledge about the same, this office has immediately vide Memo No.2368/JTO3/2008, dt.26.04.2008 kept in abeyance, in regard to the construction of Arch prohibiting the petitioner’s association and the 5th respondent herein for construction of the arch. Suppressing the said fact the petitioner herein has filed a writ petition on the pretext that the permission, granted in favour of the 5th respondent is being allowed is absolutely false. It is submitted that in pursuance of the tension between two rival groups this office is taking steps to cancel the permission granted to both the parties, i.e., petitioner herein and 5th respondent due to the law and order situation. This Court heard learned Counsel for rival parties. As noticed supra, there seems to be very serious dispute between the petitioner society and the devotees of Sri Kanaka Durgamma temple with regard to construction of Mukhadwaram/Entrance Arch. It is also clear that the second respondent decided to cancel permission to both parties. In such a situation, especially when the impugned order is kept in abeyance, it becomes clear that the entire issue is at large. Whether arch should be constructed by the petitioner or by fifth respondent with the devotees of Sri Kanaka Durgamma temple, and whether such arch has to be constructed, and if so, in whose name, are matters to be decided by the second respondent. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach second respondent, who shall hear both parties and take necessary decision duly communicating the same to the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.12.2008 vs To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Roads & Buildings, Secretariat, Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (R & B) Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, A.P. 3 The Deputy Exeuctive Engineer (R & B) Gudivada, Krishna District,A.P. 4 The Assistant Executive Engineer ( R & B) North, Gudivada,Krishna Diostrict, A.P. 5 2CCs to G.P for Roads and Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}