Holding

The decision to install the statue was valid under Clause 4 of GO No.55, 2003, and courts must exercise judicial restraint in interfering with such administrative decisions.

Summary

Vema China Koteswara Rao filed a public interest litigation seeking to declare the permission granted to install a statue of the late ex‑MLA Verna Yellaiah on government premises as illegal, alleging it violated Government Order (GO) No.393 dated 13‑June‑2000. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the later GO No.55 dated 8‑April‑2003 superseded the earlier order and authorized the erection. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Clause 4 of GO No.55, which permits statues on government land provided a Statue Committee recommends it, and found that the committee had indeed approved the installation. The Court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in reviewing administrative decisions and rejected the contention that GO No.55 only applies to organisations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the legality of the statue installation.

Issues considered

Whether the permission to erect the statue on government premises contravened GO No.393 of 2000.
Whether GO No.55 of 2003 supersedes GO No.393 and authorises such erection for individuals.
Whether Clause 4 of GO No.55 applies to government land and permits individuals to install statues.
Whether the court can interfere with the administrative decision under the principle of judicial restraint.

Subjects

public interest litigationgovernment orderadministrative decisionjudicial restraintstatue erectiongovernment premisesClause 4GO No.55GO No.393

Judgment

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.
j
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had superceded the Order of 2000-0n appeal, held: Decision to install the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.
D
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
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]
(743-F, G; 744-B-C)
B
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 KATJU, J. I. Leave granted.

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.
E
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. '
F
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
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 :

H "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),
Superintending Engineer (AP Transco) and the concerned Executive B
Engineer (R&B) is mandatory. This Committee which may also draft
if necessary representatives ofother Departments, should examine all
'I aspects before making any recommendation including possibility of
proposed statues obstructing the flow of traffic, future expansion of
roads and the design of the roads, the water supply and sewerage c
pipe lines, electrical and telephone wires and cables as well as the
local situation. The size of the statue/monument, metal used & the
design should also be considered and a site plan shall be prepared
and approved by committee before fJrwarding to the Government."

D
8. It appears that a meeting of the Statue Committee was held in the
Collector's chamber, Ongole on 22.11.2004 and we have perused the Minutes
of the said meeting. Thereafter another meeting was held in the Collector's
chamber, Ongole on 12.12.2004 and we have perused the proceedings of the
said meeting also.
E
9. In the meeting of the Statue Committee the Members agreed on
erection of the statue oflate Verna Yellaiah, Ex. MLA and Ex. Chairman, S.C.
Corporation within the Manda! Complex site at Chimakurthy.

I0. In our opinion the said decision was in accordance with the Clause
4 ofGOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003. Hence F
.. we cannot interfere. It is well settled that there must be judicial restraint
regarding administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR
(1996) SC 11.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that GOMs No.55,
G
Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 doest not authorize
individuals to erect a statue on Government premises but it contemplates
.... permission only for organizations. We cannot accept this submission. It may
be noted that GOMs No.55, Transport, R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003
refers to organizations only in para 5 of the said GOMs which states :
H
)

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A "The concerned organization who wants to install/erect the statue/ "'
monuments should procure land on payment of compensation to the i---

concerned land owners/concerned department. as the case may."

12. A comparison of para 4 and para 5 ofGOMs No.55, Transport, R&B,
(R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 shows the difference between the two. Para
B 5 deals with land belonging to private persons on which the statue is proposed
to be erected. Para 5 has nothing to do with land belonging to the Government,
in which case para 4 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 individuals provided it " ~
is recommended by the Statue Committee contemplated by para 4. There is
c no dispute that the Statue Committee has made the recommendation in this
case.

13. As regards the constitutional validity of GOMs No.55, Transport,
R&B, (R-1) Department, dated 8.4.2003 the same has not been challenged
D before us anp hence we are leaving this question open.

14. For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
'

) -