M SRINIVAS Vs. SERILMGAMPALLY MUNICIPALITY R R DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent filed the wnt petition challenging the inaction on the part of the first respondent in preventing the appellant herein from making illegal construction on the road blocking the entrance of the writ petitioner into her house. Keeping in view the factual matrix of the matter the learned single Judge in Wnt Petition No.17178 of 2001 directed the Commissioner - respondent to make an appropriate enquiry therein on the representation made by the writ petitioner in terms of the directions of the District Collector and to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the appellant herein.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said direction, the appellant herein filed the present writ appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that the road vests in the municipality and as such the District Collector cannot be said to have any say in the matter. The learned Counsel would contend that a statutory functionary can only be asked by the Court to perform its statutory duties. In that view of the matter, it is for the statutory authority alone to take appropriate action in this regard. Reference in this connection has been made to Section 174 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. The learned Counsel would contend that road vests absolutely in the Municipality as has been held by one of us (WSR.3) in an unreported decision in M. Srinivas v. The Commissioner, Serilmgampally, WP No.22376 of 2000, dated 20-11-2000.