IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26275 of 2008 Between: M/s.Jagadamba 70 MM A/c. Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Proprietor Sri V.B.Chalam, S/o.Late V.V.Naidu, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam 2 The Assistant City Planner Zone-3,Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam 3 The President Agarwal, Mahasabha, MKA Associates 28-2-4, Prakasaraopeta, 2nd floor, Visakhapatnam-2 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the order passed by the Commissioner Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam the 1st respondent herein vide C.P.Peshi No.9 dated 30.8.2008 according permission to the 3rd respondent for installation of drinking water coolers at Jagadamba Junction in Visakhapatnam city, in front of the petitioner theatres as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO MAVIDI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner-M/s. Jagadamba 70 MM A/c Theatre, represented by its Proprietor, V.B.Chalam, situated at Jagadamba Junction in Visakhapatnam City, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 30.08.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, according permission to the 3rd respondent to install drinking Water Coolers at Jagadamba Junction, Visakhaptnam, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner states that Jagadamba Junction is a very crowded place with cine goers and the visiting general public. That there was a drinking Water Tank, which about three years back, was converted into a STD booth, in which pan and other eatables are also sold, and the said business carried on from the STD booth is not causing any inconvenience either to the general public or the people visiting the theatre to watch movies. While so, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent approached the 1st respondent with a request to grant permission for installing drinking Water Coolers at several vacant places, including Jagadamba Junction, and acting on the said request, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order, permitting installation of drinking Water Cooler in front of the theatre. The petitioner states that there are several vacant places in the area, but the 1st respondent without selecting the said places, had accorded permission to the 3rd respondent for installation of the drinking Water Cooler in from of the theatre, and if the same is installed, it would obstruct the frontal view of the theatre. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. This Court, on 1.12.2008, while ordering notice before admission, stayed the installation of drinking Water Cooler at Jagadamba Junction i.e. in front of the petitioner’s theatre. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has filed W.V.M.P.No.4177 of 2008 seeking to vacate the stay of the order dated 1.12.2008 inter alia, stating in his counter affidavit that the 3rd respondent submitted a representation to the 1st respondent indicating that he is running a charitable institution and requested that he may be permitted to provide free water supply to the general public of Visakhapatnam city by installing drinking water coolers, and acting on his representation, the City Planner identified certain places in the city for installation of water coolers and subsequently, the 1st respondent, vide the impugned proceedings, dated 30.8.2008 permitted the 3rd respondent for installation of the drinking Water Coolers at different places, including in front of the theatre with certain conditions. It is further stated that the installation of drinking Water Cooler at Jagadamba Junction is very much useful to the general public, that the installation will neither cause any inconvenience to the general public nor obstruct the ingress & egress of persons visiting the theatre to watch movies. He further stated that the height of the proposed structure of water cooler is about 3 metres on which a sintex tank will be placed, while the elevation of the theatre starts from a height of about 30 feet from the ground. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed no objection to the installation of drinking water coolers in front of the theatre at Jagadamba Junction by the 3rd respondent, but submitted that the installation should not obstruct the frontal view of the theatre and not cause any inconvenience to the general public nor cause any obstruction to the ingress and egress of the cine goers visiting the theatre for watching the movies. The petitioner filed photographs of Jagadamba Junction area, at which place, the 3rd respondent was permitted to install the drinking Water Cooler. A perusal of the said photographs, would show that the drinking Water Cooler is sought to be installed on the road marign, passing along the front boundary wall of the theatre. Beside the place, where the drinking Water Cooler is sought to be installed, there are pan and other shops, established on the road margin, and it is the case of the petitioner, that they have been established by illegally encroaching the road margins. Since the road margins are public places, and meant for use by the general public, and having regard to the fact that some shops are said to have been established on the road margins by encroaching the same, and considering the fact that the petitioner has expressed no objection to the establishment of the drinking Water Cooler by the 3rd respondent in front of the theatre, but subject to the condition that the installation does not disturb the frontal view of the theatre, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The 1st respondent may consider the feasibility of installing the drinking Water Cooler by removing the encroachments made on the road margins. Before taking steps to remove the encroachments made on the road margins, the 1st respondent shall issue notices to all the affected parties. However, if he considers that the installation of drinking Water Coolers would not be convenient at the place where the encroachments are made, then he shall permit the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the installation of the drinking Water Cooler in front of the theatre of the petitioner, but he shall ensure that the installation of the same, will neither disturb the frontal view of the theatre nor cause any obstruction or inconvenience to the general public or affect the ingress and egress to the people visiting the theatre for watching movies. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 21st January, 2009 bcj