Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 400 (AP)

A. Ramulu v. District Collector, Nalgonda

2001-04-10

S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO

body2001
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. This writ petition which is in the nature of pro bono publico has been filed questioning the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 19-9-2000 whereby and whereunder Acs. 1.00 Government bancharai land had been directed to be handed over to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda for construction of a bus stand. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submitted that the Gram Panchayat of Nampalli Village had adopted a resolution that a bus stand be provided for in the said village. Allegedly the 4th respondent herein without inspecting the suitable land and at the behest of land owners and political pressures recommended to locate such bus stand in S.No. 464 which is said to be located for away from the village and not convenient to the general public. A representation to the aforementioned effect was made by the Gram Panchayat in terms of its letter dated 9-11-1999. It is also stated that in terms of the said resolution the Nodal Officer by a letter dated 1-2-2000 recommended to the 4th respondent that the bus stand be located opposite to the Zilla Parishad High School or near the by-pass road in S.Nos.75, 76 and 77. However, without considering the aforementioned objection, the said site was chosen despite the resolution by the Gram Panchayat that the said site be earmarked for providing house sites to the weaker Sections and be acquired for the said purpose. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents inter alia it is stated that the land has been allotted by the Government for a public purpose. It has been stated that the land in S.Nos. 75,76 and 77 is low level one and pattedars of the said land had not given their consent for APSRTC bus stand. 3. It has been pointed out that the District Collector and the other statutory authorities had taken the decision upon taking into consideration all relevant factors. It is stated that the land in question abuts the village and more convenient for construction of the bus stand. It has further been stated that the land in S.Nos.75 being a low land, huge amount has to be spent for construction of a bus stand there. It has been pointed out that the possession of the allotted land has already been handed over on 12-10-2000. It has further been stated that the land in S.Nos.75 being a low land, huge amount has to be spent for construction of a bus stand there. It has been pointed out that the possession of the allotted land has already been handed over on 12-10-2000. An implead petition has been filed by one N. Venkaiah and other wherein it has been inter alia contended that the site was chosen by a team including a representative of the APSRTC. 4. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether in a situation of this nature when different parties had raised the controversy with regard to the location of a bus stand, a writ petition in the nature of PIL would be maintainable. 5. The answer to the said question, in our considered opinion, must be rendered in negative. Location of a bus stand, bus stop, etc., is determined by a competent authority under the provisions of the Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. If the APSRTC is a party to the decision, there cannot be any doubt that such a decision had been taken in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Such a decision by the statutory authority cannot be interfered with in a public interest litigation unless it is found that an illegality or irrationality or procedural irregularity has been committed in respect thereof. In J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., AIR 1988 SC 1681 para 9 it is stated while considering as to whether a headquarter of a particular village to be located: It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such Headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Mohd, Ibrahim v. A.P.S.R.T.C., 1998 (1) An. W.R. 753 also held to the same effect. 8. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.