Jetty Umeshwar Rao v. Direclorate General of Defence Estates

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to remove the illegal construction works of erection ofpoliticiansmemorialStatueinPicketPublicGardenpendingdisposhlofthe above WP (PlL). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.VENU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI B'NARASIMHA SHARMA' ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA' REP. FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI K'R'KOTESWARA RAO' Sr. SC FOR CANTONMENT The Court made the following: ORDER t/ THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEtr'JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOITOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE REI{UKA YARA WRIT PETITION IPILI No.l of 2O25 ORDER Oral (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justie) Sri Ch. Venu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, lor respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri K.R.Koteswera Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Cantonment, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. Heard on admission

3. In this Public lnterest Litigation, the petitioner has claimed for the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying aflidavit, it is therefore prayed, that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Dircction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandums I (i) directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to restore the Picket Public Garden situated in GLR.Survey No.487 having extent of 13.6900 Ac to its original place as per GLR Extract by removing the illegal construction works of erection ol politicians memorial statue, (ii) to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. I to 4 for violation of the orders of Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8519/20O6 in Union of India vs. State of Gujarat & others, 2 (iii) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for misuse of Cantonment Public Funds and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem frt and proper in the circumstances of the case and in tlle interest ol justice."

4. The petitioner claiming himself to be a social worker and public spiritr:d person has Iiled the present Public Interest Litigation. To support his contention that he is a social worker, reliance is placed on the certificate dated 25.01 .2OO4 and award of appreciation dated 26.O 1.2007 issued by the Covernment of Andhra Prade sh in relation to blood donation carnps

5. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that the erection of statue of political leader in the Picket Public Garden is against the interest of public. He submits that Article 51 A (g) of the Constitution provides as under: 'Article 51A. Fundamental Duties: (a) to (0. . . (g) to protect and improve the natural environmenL including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;"

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the aforesaid F\rndamental Duty, the petitioner has fiIed this petition to protect the environment. Article 48A is referred to --J -71 // J bolster the submission that it is obligatory on the part of the Government to protect and improve the environment, whereas by erection of statue they ar€ destroying the greenery and environment.

7. The next contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner is based on Sections 62 and 64 of the Cantonments Act' 2006' It is submitted that Section 62 deals with Duties of the Board, whereas Section 64 deals with Discretionary functions of the Board. A conjoint reading of the said Sections makes it clear that there exists no enabling provision for erection of statues +r the Public Gardens. karned counsel for the petitioner highlighted about the condition of the Garden by placing reliance on the newspaper article which was published on 03.08.2006 (Annexure P-8). Thus, the petitioner/ social worker is entitled to raise present grievance.

8. Last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. State of Gujaratl. By placing heary reliance on the record of proceedings/interim order dated 18.01'2O13 in Union of India (supra), learned counsel for the peLitioner submits that until I Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.851912006 4 further orders, the Supreme Court directed that status quo which is obtaining as on that date was to be maintained with regard to the statues. Reference is also made to the frnal judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case to submit that in view of the final judgment, particularly paragraph Nos.S and 6 of the said judgment, aII the High Courts are under obligation to consider this aspect a nd the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court was continued. In the event of any breach, it was open for the High Courts to exercise its jurisdiction. In the light of this argument, tlee action of tlle respondents of erection of statue in the Picket Pr: blic Garden is against the public interest and the said action may be held as illegal.

9. Sounding a contra note, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submits that present Public Interest Litigation does not disclose as to what are the social activities carried on by the petitioner. The certificate and award of appreciation on which reliance is placed are relating to blood donation camps and has nothing to do with environment. The recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vankadavath Hanma lYayak v. The State of Telangana2, was referred to submit that the petitioner is not a social worker or a r W.t,.1etL1 No.lqt0t ol 2()23. dccided on 19.08.2023 I I ,.a I i ! i 5 public spirited person. Merely doing yoga in the Picket Public Garden does not make him a social worker. Heavy reliance is placed on paragraph No.24 of the judgment in the case of Vankadavath Hanma Nayak (supra).

10. karned Additional Solicitor General of India by producing photographs of the Garden where the statue is erected submits that it is a statue of Former Prime Minister of India and Bharat Ratna, whose centenary functions are going on in the entire year, as such, the statue is erected and its inauguration is due. The same is erected at the end of the large green garden. It is not creating any hindrance to the people, who are doing yoga or walking. Thus, no element of Public Interest Litigation is there in this petition.

11. It is further contended that the order of the Supreme Court in Union of India (supra) relates to illegal constructions of religious nature on the roads, parks, public places, etc,. Thus, the said order cannot be made applicable in the present case.

12. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I ,il N 6

13. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the records. Findings:- 14. This Court in the case of Vaakadavath Hanma Nayak (supra) at paragraph No.24 opined as under: "24' From perusar of paragraph Nos.2 and 3, referred to supra, it is clear that petitioner has only siated that he is resident of the village and is a so"i.f *o.L. Ld working for upliftmenr of downrrodden and is proteltirg inno."r,, p.opt. and the Government lands from frira s."I;Er". Hou.ever, no such detai,ts of activities have neither-U"".r-.rr"...a nor any documents have been filed in support of s;c; ln averment.,

15. In the light of above findings, if the antecedents of the petitioner are examined, it will be clear like noonday that only work highlighted by him is relating to blood donation. Thus, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Vankadavath Hanma Nayak (supra), it cannot be said that the petitioner is public spirited person for the purpose of raising the present grievanr:e

16. So far, Sections 62 and 64 of the Cantonments Act, 20O6 are concerned, it prescribes different functions and duties of the Board. The petitioner could not point out any provision of the Cantonments Act, which has been breached by erection of staf6e._ Thus, the Cantor-rments Act is of no assistance to the petitioner. j i I i I I I I // 7 1,7. The photographs relied upon by the learned Additional I Solicitor General of India makes it crystal clear that in huge green garden a statue is erected at end and pathway or greenery or walking area zre not at all disturbed. Thus, on merits, we find no justification to interfere.

18. So far, the order of the Supreme Court is concerned, a minute reading of interim order dated i8.01.2013 shows that the ad inteim protection was confined to and was in relation to triangle island of Kanyakumari, where a statue was sought to be erected, the last line of this interim order shows that the SLP was directed to be listed after four weeks. Thereafter, final judgment dated 3 1 .O 1 .2O 18 was passed. A minute reading of final judgment shows that the directions are mainly issued to prevent unauthorized construction of Temples, Churches, Mosques or Gurudwaras on streets, pathways, gardens and other public places etc. Tine ad interim protection dated 18'01'2013 on which heavy reliancg is placed is not order in rem and was in relation to a particular statue situated in a particular area' Even assuming that the said order is continued, the same is confined to that area onll'. In the final judgment, there is no specific direction for erection of statues in garden. 8

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to entertain the present public Interest Litigation. The petition sans substaace and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, il, any, pending shajl stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI CH.VENU KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESWARA RAO, Sr. SC FOR CANTONMENT toPUCl

3. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies BSR GJPw i I i rJ i l. I l i HIGH COURT DATED: 2910112025 ] '\, s c) , $: ,, d{J o l DISI,AJ ORDER WP(PIL).N ct.1 of 2025 DrsMlssrNG THE WRIT PETITION (PlL), WITHOUT COSTS a I I I !, I ! i I I i I ! I I I I I I I : ! (!) ,a3'd &,