IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1593 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 20246 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangham, rep. by its President, Mandadi Benerjee, S/o. Jonathan, R/o. Veeravalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 4 The Gram Panchayat, Veeravalli Village, rep. by its Secretary, Veeravalli Village, Bapulapadu, Mandal, Krishna District. 5 Babu Jagajjivanram Statue Committee, rep. by its President, Bezavada Eliah, S/o. Chinna R/o.Veeravalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.RAVINDER YADAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1593 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 18-9-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.20246 of 2008, whereby he disposed of the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the fourth respondent resolution dated 24-11-2006 is illegal on the ground that the resolution dated 05-3-1990 is in existence and in accordance with the resolution dated 05-3-1990 the statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was installed and as such, the resolution dated 24-1-2006 of the fourth respondent is not sustainable in granting permission to install Dr.Babu Jagajeeva Ram statue in very close proximity to that of Dr.Ambedkar, as there is a threat to the stability of the existing statue. Further the learned single Judge ought to have directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the notice issued to the fourth respondent in ROC.No.1108 of 2007, dated 23-5-2007. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to shift the statue of Dr.Babu Jagjeevan Ram to alternative place from the place where the statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar statue was erected in the year 1990 in the interest of the public at large. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. 4. As can be seen from the order passed by the learned single Judge, it appears that the learned single Judge directed the fourth respondent to ensure the safety and stability of the statue of Dr.Ambedkar is not affected in any manner, on account of the installation of statue of Dr.Babu Jagjeevan Ram in the village and he further hoped that the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent therein, which are formed for the upliftment of dalits would dissolve the differences, if any, between them and do not permit the issue of installation of statues to become complicated. The learned single Judge also observed that necessary steps can be taken either by the appellant or by the fourth respondent to ensure that the safety of the statue is not affected in any manner. In view of the above cogent reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 5. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 16-2-2008. I s L – K s H ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MSN}