THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.32129 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the order issued by the third respondent in his proceedings letter No.135/S/DC8/GHMC/2011 dated 09.09.2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner society for allotment of site on traffic island adjacent to the Nampally Railway Station as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to accord sanction and allot the site on the said traffic island to the petitioner for construction of BOT basis forthwith. 2 The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition are that pursuant to the offer made by the respondents for construction of public conveniences on BOT (Build, Operate & Transfer) basis in Circle No.VI (New Circle No.VIII) the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.6.2008 requesting to allot the site for construction of public toilets at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad along with a plan in duplicate showing the proposed construction. It is submitted that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner remarks were called for from the Assistant City Planner on 01.07.2008. Petitioner submits that he came to know that the respondents 2 and 3 accorded sanction for allotment of the site on Traffic Island adjacent to Nampally Railway Station in file No.135/TS/DCP/GHMC/2009 dated 25.9.2009 and the second respondent cleared the file on 05.10.2009, but, however the respondents failed to accord permission to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.12738 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondents to accord permission for construction on BOT basis at the Traffic Island adjacent to Nampally Railway station and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition the respondents have produced the impugned order dated 09.09.2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner. This Court by order dated 11.10.2011 dismissed the said Writ Petition as no relief can be granted in view of the passing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition assailing the impugned order. Hence the present Writ Petition. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the request of the petitioner for allotment of the site on traffic island is rejected without there being any reason and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 5 On the other hand the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the traffic island was already developed with a fountain and the same cannot be given for any other purpose. 6 In view of the fact that the disputed site for which the petitioner is making request to allot the same for construction of toilets on build, operate and transfer system was rejected on the ground that the said site has already been developed into a park with a fountain, question of giving the same for any other purpose to other person does not arise. 7 Hence I see no merits in this Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed as devoid of merit, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 16th December 2011 Kvsn