IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20246 of 2008 Between: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangham, rep. by its President, Mandadi Benerjee, S/o. Jonathan R/o. Veeravalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER 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 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 to 4 in not taking steps to shift the Statue of Dr. Babu Jagjjivan Ram to some alternative place from the place where the Statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was erected in the year 1990 by following the instructions of the 1st respondent issued vide L.Dis.H/2418/2007, dt. 12.12.2007 and Rc.H/2043/2008, dt. 20.05.2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RAVINDER YADAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the year 1990, it approached the Gram Panchayat, Veeravalli, the fourth respondent herein, with a request to allot site in the middle of the village for erection of statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Permission was accorded through a resolution and the statue was installed. The ﬁfth respondent is another society/organization, comprising the residents of the same village, but of a different section. On a representation made by them, the fourth respondent accorded permission for erection of statue of Dr.Babu Jagjeevan Ram. The petitioner states that, on the basis of the resolution passed by the fourth respondent, the ﬁfth respondent has erected the statue of Dr.Babu Jagjeevan Ram in very close proximity to that of Dr.Ambedkar and that there is a threat to the stability of the existing statue. Heard Sri D.Ravinder Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Even from the averments in the aﬃdavit, it is clear that the statue of Dr.Babu Jagjeevan Ram was installed by the side of the statue of Dr.Ambedkar. It is too late for this Court to issue any directions to the respondents to take any steps. The apprehension of the petitioner is only as regards the threat to the safety and stability of the statue of Dr.Ambedkar. Necessary steps can be taken either by the petitioner, or by the fourth respondent, to ensure that the safety of the statue is not affected in any manner. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the fourth respondent shall ensure that 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. It is hoped that the petitioner as well as the ﬁfth respondent, 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. No costs. ____________________ Dt.18.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ