THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.16240 and 17088 of 2014 Dated 23.12.2014 WRIT PETITION No.16240 of 2014 Between:
New Bethesda Bathing Ghat Committee, Rajahmundry And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. CH. SAMSON BABU Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.K.S.MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.17088 of 2014 Between:
United Christian Association of Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry and two others And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Petitioners …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. CH. SAMSON BABU Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.K.S.MURTHY The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
The parties in both these writ petitions and the subject matter are common. Hence, they are being disposed of together.
The petitioners have applied to the Executive Engineer, Godavari Head Works Division, Dowleshwaram, East Godavari District, for permission to construct a ghat for performing baptism, between two existing cords at Km.10.100 and Km.10.200. Permission was granted subject to certain conditions. The petitioners pleaded that after paying the required non-refundable security deposit, construction work for laying concrete pillars was commenced and completed in the third week of May, 2014; that the ghat was inaugurated on 28.05.2014; that on 30.05.2014, certain religious groups have taken to agitation seeking cancellation of permission granted by respondent No.4; that all leading newspapers have published the decisions taken in the meeting of various religious organizations to the effect that granting of permission to Christians for performing baptism would amount to interference with the Hindu religious affairs and that cleansing process has to be performed for sanctifying the river Godavari. The petitioners have made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari and the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, on 02.06.2014. Apprehending cancellation of permission, W.P.No.16240 of 2014 has been filed. After filing of the said writ petition, the Executive Engineer has issued proceedings No.EE/GH/ MC.3/704M, dated 14.06.2014 cancelling the permission granted to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.17088 of 2014 has been filed.
By separate interim orders dated 20.06.2014 and 24.06.2014 in W.P.Nos.16240 and 17088 of 2014 respectively, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Heard Mr. Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Mr.K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
As regards W.P.No.16240 of 2014, as the same was filed on the apprehension that the permission granted to the petitioner may be cancelled, the said writ petition has become infructuous with the passing of cancellation orders dated 14.06.2014.
Insofar as W.P.No.17088 of 2014 is concerned, one of the main grievances of the petitioner is that no notice was issued to them before cancelling the permission.
A perusal of the order impugned in W.P.No.17088 of 2014 shows that respondent No.2-Executive Engineer has referred to Notice No. E.E/G.H/MC3/672M dated 07.06.2014 in the reference column. However, in the body of the proceeding, nothing is stated with regard to the said notice.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that a copy of notice dated 07.06.2014 is available with him. However, he is unable to state whether the said notice was served on the petitioners and whether they were given an opportunity of submitting their explanation.
In my opinion, as the impugned order has the effect of depriving the petitioners of the right vested in them to construct a ghat for carrying on baptism, such a right cannot be taken away without a prior notice and holding a detailed enquiry. As respondent No.2 has failed to follow this procedure, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order impugned in W.P.No.17088 of 2014 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is left with the liberty to issue a detailed notice indicating therein the grounds on which he proposes to cancel the permission. The petitioners shall be provided with reasonable time to submit their explanation. After submission of the explanation, respondent No.2 shall hold a detailed enquiry, after giving notice to the petitioners and respondent No.4 and pass a detailed speaking order.
Accordingly, W.P.No.16240 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous and W.P.No.17088 of 2014 is allowed.
As a sequel, W.V.M.P.No.1883 of 2014 in/and W.P.No.20125 of 2014 and W.P.M.P.No.20126 of 2014 filed therein are disposed of.
W.P.M.P.No.21384 of 2014 in W.P.No.17088 of 2014 also stands disposed of.
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 23.12.2014 va