Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Challenge to GVMC Public Toilet Construction Near Maddilapalem Residence

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a homeowner cannot resist construction of public toilets on GVMC land near their compound wall, while directing the corporation and its PPP partner to maintain hygiene.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a writ petition filed by three members of the Kapuganti family, declined to interfere with the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation's plan to construct public toilets on GVMC-owned land at Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, sitting singly, found that the petitioners had no direct access to the main road from their property, that an 8-foot drainage channel separated their compound wall from the proposed construction site, and that the land belonged entirely to the GVMC. Relying on the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, the court held that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to sanitation, and that the petitioners could not lawfully obstruct a public amenity on municipal land.

The Dispute Before the Court

The three petitioners — Kapuganti Chinna Swamy Setty, Kapuganti Krishna Kumari, and Kapuganti Sreenivas, all legal heirs of the late K. Chiranjeevi Rao — own a residential house bearing D. No. 9-41-31/2, Pitapuram Colony, Revenue Ward 16, Visakhapatnam. They filed Writ Petition No. 13064 of 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), and the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC Zonal Office-3, Maddilipalem.

Their prayer was to declare the respondents' action in proceeding with the construction of public toilets in front of their house — without considering their representation dated 25 April 2026 — as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. They also sought a direction restraining the GVMC from carrying out the construction.

The petitioners described their plot as a corner plot, with the house gate opening into a by-lane and the main road side adjoining an open GVMC site. Their objection centred on apprehended loss of hygiene and the nuisance of foul smell from the proposed toilets.

GVMC's Position: PPP Agreement and Site Selection

The Zonal Commissioner, GVMC, filed written instructions through counsel Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations, Sri A.S.C. Bose. The instructions disclosed that the GVMC had entered into an agreement with Lotus International for the construction and maintenance of 12 public toilets across Visakhapatnam under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode. Of these, 10 had already been constructed and were being maintained at locations including the Railway Station, RTC Complex, Jail Road, Jagadamba Junction, Collector Office, RK Beach, YMCA, Kancharapalem, NAD Junction, and Gajuwaka (Zinc Gate).

For the remaining two locations — Maddilapalem and Pendurthi — the GVMC had sought suitable sites. After a survey, the Zonal Office issued permission vide letter Rc.No.234/2026/FI/PH Sec/East Zone, GVMC dated 31 March 2026, allotting an extent of 76.66 sq. yds (60 ft x 11.6 ft) in S.No. 64 part of Maddilapalem Revenue Village to Lotus International. The site was described as being on the north side of the existing bus stop near Union Bank, opposite the Maddilapalem RTC Bus Stand.

The GVMC specifically contested the petitioners' characterisation of the site. According to the written instructions, the petitioners' claim that the toilets were being built directly in front of their house was “false statement.” The corporation stated that an 8-foot gedda (drainage channel) lay between the petitioners' compound wall and the proposed construction, and that the petitioners had no access to NH 5 Road from their property.

The Court's Factual Findings

Justice Ramakrishna Prasad examined the photographs submitted by both sides and accepted the GVMC's factual position. The court found that the petitioners' plot was not a corner plot as claimed. The photographs showed open space and a running drainage channel with cement walls between the petitioners' compound wall and the subject land. The petitioners had no access to the main road from that side.

The court also noted that the petitioners' gate opened into the by-lane, meaning their ingress and egress was entirely unaffected by the proposed construction. The petitioners' counsel, Sri K. Sakthi Niranjan Guptha, drew the court's attention to Exhibit P.4, a sketch, and argued that any toilets built now would have to be demolished when the road was widened under the Master Plan, causing additional disruption. The court considered this submission but did not find it a sufficient ground to restrain the construction.

Article 21 and the Supreme Court's Sanitation Ruling

The court turned to the constitutional dimension. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 81, which examined the meaning and scope of the word “life” under Article 21. The court extracted paragraph 8.24 of that judgment at length.

The Supreme Court had held in Rajeeb Kalita that public health is of paramount importance, that clean public toilets contribute to the health and well-being of society, and that the right to life encompasses the right to a healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity. The apex court had also observed that the availability of public toilets protects the privacy of women and transgender persons and removes threats to their safety. It had declared that providing access to public toilets is an important duty of States and Union Territories under the Directive Principles, and that States cannot claim to be welfare states without ensuring such access for all three genders.

Justice Ramakrishna Prasad held that this dictum applied squarely to the facts before him. The proposed site was adjacent to a busy bus stop and opposite the Maddilapalem APSRTC Bus Station and Depot, making the need for public sanitation facilities evident. The land belonged to the GVMC, and the petitioners had no legal right to resist construction on it.

Direction on Hygiene Maintenance

The court did not entirely dismiss the petitioners' hygiene concern. It acknowledged that if the toilets were not kept clean, foul smell could cause inconvenience to residents in the vicinity, including the petitioners' household. The court noted that maintenance had been entrusted to Lotus International, described in the written instructions as a Non-Governmental Organisation operating under the PPP arrangement.

The court directed that the burden of ensuring the toilets were maintained in an absolutely clean condition lay on both Lotus International and the official respondents. It specifically directed that foul smell shall not emanate from the toilets in a manner that causes inconvenience to the residents of the petitioners' house.

The court also clarified that it remained open to the petitioners to raise objections about any inconvenience before the competent authority or before the GVMC if hygiene standards were not maintained after construction.

Order

Writ Petition No. 13064 of 2026 was disposed of on 6 May 2026 with the above observations and directions. No order as to costs was made. All interlocutory applications, if any, were closed in terms of the order.