VEMA CHINA KOTESWARA RAO versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 15-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

j 
VEMA CHINA KOTESWARA RAO 
A 
v. 
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
• 
FEBRUARY 15, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Government Orders-Administrative decision-To install statue of Ex. 
MLA-Challenged in Public Interest Litigation as illegal being contrary to 
a particular Government order of 2000-High Court holding it as legal as 
it was in accordance consonance with a Government Order of 2003 which C 
had superceded the Order of 2000-0n appeal, held: Decision to install the 
statue was in accordance with the subsequent Government Order-Court 
should exercise judicial restraint in administrative decisions-Judicial 
restraint. 
A writ petition as public interest litigation was filed seeking to declare 
the action of the respondent in permitting the third respondent to construct 
and install a statute of his father an Ex. MLA as arbitrary and illegal, being 
contrary to GO Ms No. 393 dated 13.6.2000. High Court dismissed the same 
D 
on the ground that the decision was legal in view of the GOMs No. 55, 
Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.203, which superceded GOMs E 
No. 393 dated 13.6.2000. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The decision was in accordance with Clause 4 ofGOMs No. 
55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003. Hence the same F 
cannot be interfered. There must be judicial restraint regarding administrative 
decisions. (Para IO) (743-F) 
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC II, relied on. 
2. It cannot be said that GOMs No. 55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) G 
Department, dated 8.4.2003 does not authorize individuals to erect a statue 
on Government premises but it contemplates permission only for 
organizations. The order refers to organiations only in para 5. Para 5 has 
nothing to do with land belonging to the Government, in which case para 4 
741 
H 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A applies. Hence so far as land belonging to the Government is concerned, the 
setting up of a statue thereon is not restricted to organizations, and permission 
for doing so can even be granted to individulas provided it is recommended by 
the Statue Committee contemplated by para 4. In the present case, the Statue 
Committee has made the recommendations. (Paras 11 and 12] 
B 
(743-F, G; 744-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 781 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.2005 of the High Court of 
Jidicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No. 282/2005. 
C 
John Mathew for the Aprellant. 
T.V. George for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the 
Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.2.2005 in Writ Petition No. 282 of2005. 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
4. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was delivered on 
a writ petition filed as a 'Public Interest Litigation' to declare the action of 
the respondent in permitting the third respondent to construct and install the 
statue of his father, an Ex. MLA, as arbitrary and illegal being contrary to 
GOMs No.393 dated 13.6.2000. 
5. A counter affidavit had been filed in the writ petition in which it was 
stated that the respondents have followed the rules contained in GOMs 
No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 which superceded 
GOMs No.393 dated 13.6.2000. 
· 
G 
6. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition in view 
H 
of the GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003. 
7. We have perused the GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, 
dated 8.4.2003. Clause No.4 of the same states : 
"4. If statues/monuments are unavoidable on roads, they should 
' 
VEMA CHINA KOTESWARA RAO v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 743 
,,, 
be located only on large traffic islands, public gardens, parks, premises A 
--1 
of Government buildings, town halls or places of public importance. 
In case, any approval of Government is required, recommendation by 
a Statue Committee headed by the District Collector and comprising 
Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Engineers (R&B), Chainnan/ 
CEO, Local Municipal Body, Superintending Engineers (PR), B 
Superintending Engineer (AP Transco) and the concerned Executive 
Engineer (R&B) is mandatory. This Committee which may also draft 
if necessary representatives ofother Departments, should examine all 
'I 
a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.