IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4654 of 2009 Between: Pothula Chandra Shekar (Hindu) S/o. Venkateswar Rao R/o. Kobbarithota, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tadepalligudem Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT 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 respondent in taking steps to demolish Sri Punthalo Musalamma Ammavari Temple situated at Seetharampet / Kobbarithota of Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District under the guise of formation of drain though there is no need or necessity to demolish the temple as it does not cause any problem without any manner or right and without any reason and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the public policy and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the said temple. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4654 of 2009 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the proposed action of the respondent-Municipality in seeking to demolish”Sri Punthalo Musalamma Ammavari Temple”, situated at Seetharampet/Kobbarithotaa of Tadepallegudem, West Godavari, in the guise of laying drain line, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Temple is located on the road margin of the road and no inconvenience is caused to the general public, and even though there is no necessity to lay a drain line, the respondent-Municipality in the guise of laying a drain line from near the Temple, sought to demolish the Temple, and hence he prays that the respondent-Municipality be directed not to demolish the Temple, and they be directed to lay the drain line from any other place. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality. I have also perused the copy of the sketch of Seetharampet Road Area, produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality. A perusal of the sketch of Seetharampet Road, would would disclose that the Temple, which the respondents sought to demolish for laying drain line, is situated on the flank of the corner of the main road. Since day in and day out, devotees visit and congregate at the Temple, to offer their puja to the presiding deity, no one, including the petitioner, can dispute the fact that certainly some or the other inconvenience would be caused to the road users. The respondent- Municipality is seeking to demolish the Temple for the purpose of laying drain line, the laying of such drain lines, being one of the important functions of the respondent-Municipality, I see no reason whatsoever to prevent the respondent-Municipality from demolishing the Temple, which in fact, is situated on the main road. However, the petitioner is at liberty to request the respondent-Municipality to provide alternate and suitable land to shift the Temple to a place, which would be convenient to one and all, and if any such representation is made, the respondent-Municipality is at liberty to consider. With the observations as above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 6th March, 2009 KSR