ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. Udayanagar Colony Residents Welfare Association and the Secretary of the said Association are the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the action of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in undertaking to construct a community hall in the name “Nayee Brahman Community Hall”.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The then M.L.A. of Malakpet Constituency requested the Mandal Revenue Officer, to inspect the Government land behind Municipal School as its suitability for construction of community hall for the benefit of Nayee Brahman residents of the Constituency. The said M.L.A. also informed the District Collector, the first respondent herein saying his willingness to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for construction of community hall for the benefit of the said community. The Assembly Constituency Developmental Programme Committee met under the Chairmanship of M.L.A. and proposed construction of community hall (Malakpet Nayee Brahman Community Hall). The District Collector also accorded sanction vide proceedings Dt. 22-3-1996 for construction of community hall at Malakpet (Nayee Brahman Community Hall). At that stage, the writ petition is filed. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim directions directing that the possession of the community hall shall not be given to any particular society.
3. A. P. Nayee Barhman Seva Sangam on their own came on record as fifth respondent. The Municipal Corporation also filed a counter-affidavit. The matter was heard finally at the interlocutory stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in their counter narrated the events leading to sanction of community hall and also admit that the petitioner has represented to the Corporation not to name the community hall after any particular community. It is also stated that the community hall vests with the Corporation and that after construction by reason of Interim orders is in possession of the Estate Officer, the third respondent herein. The Executive Engineer of Circle No. 1 of the respondent-Corporation also states that even though the community hall is named after a particular community, the community hall will remain as property of the Corporation. The fifth respondent in their counter states that they made representation to the M.L.A. for construction of community hall in the Government land and that the M.L.A. after approaching the necessary authorities expressed his willingness to give contribution of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Constituency Development Fund for the benefit of Nayee Brahman Community. As they are instrumental in getting the sanction from the then M.L.A. as well as the District Collector, the fifth respondent states that there is justification in naming it as Nayee Brahman Community Hall.
5. At the outset the submission of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao that the petitioner should be non-suited for want of cause of action must be rejected. The various proceedings would show that the project was conceived and sanctions were accorded for construction of community hall (Nayee Brahman Community Hall). This would give every reasonable apprehension that the community hall of the Corporation would be named after Nayee Brahman Community Hall. In such a case the apprehension of the citizen in approaching this Court cannot be brushed aside as nebulous. Be that as it may, the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation indeed supports the view that the petitioners’ apprehension was genuine and they were entitled as tax payers to approach this Court to uphold the rule of law.
6. Secondly, the Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority constituted under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). It is entrusted with certain public functions and to discharge them it is given vast powers, Including power to tax and impose penalties on contraveners of provisions of the Act. Establishment of various offices for providing amenities for its constituents is one of the prime functions (See Sections 112 to 115 of the Act, 1955). These public places are not meant for persons belonging to a particular community. All public authorities and statutory authorities shall have to discharge their functions subject to Statute under which they are constituted and above all subject to Constitution of India. Any action which would be contrary to the Constitution especially fundamental rights would face wrath of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India rendering themselves void. No elaborate argument is required to support the submission that caste cannot be the basis for construction of community halls, swimming pools, public libraries etc. No doubt, the Constitution is not caste blind, but it does not mean that caste only can be basis for discrimination. The averment in the counter-affidavit that even if the community hall is named after Nayee Brahman Community Hall, it will be thrown open to all persons belonging to all groups, is no concession at all when such action would be contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, holding that naming of a community hall by the Corporation on caste basis would offend the secular character of the Constitution and the law, the writ petition has to be allowed. The respondent-Corporation Is restrained from naming the community hall, at Malakpet in the name of any community. It is however open for the Corporation to name it in any manner without offending law and the Constitution.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.