The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.23755 of 2011 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Konithiwada Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch. ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Roads and Buildings), Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for R & B Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri G.Elisha, SC for Gram Panchayat The Court made the following: Order: The one-upmanship attitude exhibited by respondent No.5- Gram Panchayat is quite apparent in its constructing a bus shelter on the edge of the R & B road, blocking the existing bus shelter constructed by the petitioner- Gram Panchayat, albeit partially as could be seen from the photographs filed by both the parties. The facts are not in dispute. The road margin portion of Veeravasaram to Penumandra, which is, admittedly, vested in Roads and Buildings Department, was occupied by certain encroachers. When respondent No.4- Assistant Engineer, R & B Department, has issued eviction notices, they have filed W.P.Nos.24188 and 24232 of 2009. The petitioner in the latter mentioned Writ Petition is the Sarpanch of respondent No.5- Nowduru Gram Panchayat. He was aggrieved by the eviction notice on the ground that an old bus shelter is in existence and that if the same is removed, the travelling public will suffer. This Court, while dismissing W.P.No.24188 of 2009, granting a month’s time for the petitioner therein to remove the structure belonging to him, however, allowed W.P.No.24232 of 2009, by setting aside the notice and permitting respondent No.5- Nowduru Gram Panchayat to shift the existing bus shelter to the extreme edge of the road, if any place is made available after removal of the encroachments. As if taking a cue from the said observation, respondent No.5 has constructed a new bus shelter on the edge of the road, but, it is an admitted fact that by the time they have ventured into the said act, the petitioner- Gram Panchayat has already raised a very impressive structure to serve as a bus shelter, as seen from the photographs submitted by both the parties at the hearing. These photographs would clearly show that the bus shelter constructed by the petitioner is located behind the new bus shelter constructed by respondent No.5, leaving sufficient space even from the edge of the road margin. The grievance of the petitioner- Gram Panchayat is that when already a bus shelter was constructed by it, there was absolutely no necessity for constructing another bus shelter as if the same was intended to be in competition with the existing bus shelter wasting lot of public money. At the hearing, Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.5 has not taken any permission from the R & B Department for constructing the bus shelter. He has placed reliance on report, dated 08-03-2011, of respondent No.3- Executive Engineer (R & B), Bhimavaram, sent to respondent No.2- Superintendent Engineer (R & B), Eluru Circle, Eluru, wherein he has opined that proposed construction of a new bus shelter, when the bus shelter already constructed by the petitioner- Gram Panchayat is in existence, by respondent No.5 is absolutely illegal and unnecessary constituting waste of public funds. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is stated that the agricultural societies of Nowduru Gram Panchayat and one B.Satyanarayana of Nowduru Village have constructed the bus shelter with their money and that respondent No.5- Gram Panchayat has merely passed a resolution therefor. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3- Executive Engineer (R & B), Bhimavaram, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.5 has constructed the bus shelter on extreme road margin by removing the existing bus shelter and that no permission was granted by the R & B Department. He has also referred to his own report wherein he has stated that the bus shelter constructed by Sri K.Rayapu Raju of the petitioner- Gram Panchayat will serve the purpose of villagers of both Konithiwada and Navuduru Villages and that the very proposal to construct another bus shelter is ‘ridiculous’ and mere waste of public money. From the facts noted above, the only area of dispute is whether respondent No.5- Gram Panchayat has constructed the bus shelter with its own funds or with the contributions made by some of its villagers. This issue pales into insignificance because the main question is, whether a second bus shelter was necessary at all when, admittedly, a bus shelter constructed by one K.Rayapu Raju of petitioner- Gram Panchayat was already available. Admittedly, as opined by respondent No.3, in his report submitted to respondent No.2, the existing bus shelter would cater to the needs of the travelling public of both the villages. It is not in dispute that who ever has constructed the second bus shelter has not taken the permission from the R & B Department, in which the road is vested. Therefore, both from the point of view of necessity and also legality, construction of the second bus shelter either by respondent No.5- Gram Panchayat or its villagers cannot be sustained. As regard the observations made in W.P.No.24232 of 2009, it is to be seen that the factum of existence of a bus shelter does not appear to have been brought to the notice of this Court. I am sure, had the said fact been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court may not have given liberty for construction of another bus shelter at the edge of the road. In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to remove the second bus shelter. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.5 to relocate the bus shelter at a place away from the existing bus shelter, subject to the R & B Department giving permission for such relocation. As a sequel, WPMP.No.29118 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd September, 2011 LUR