THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2297 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners are the owners of premises in Afzalsagar, Seetharambagh, Mallepally, Hyderabad. It is stated that part of the premises are commercial in nature and rest of the part residential. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, respondent No.1 herein, has arranged steel girder at the place where the lane joins the main road. The petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in directing erection of steel girder. According to them, the girder prevents the entry of heavy vehicles, which carry goods and other material to the shops. It is also alleged that respondent No.4 was behind the erection of girders and the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is politically motivated. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances under which the girders came to be arranged. According to him, the area is predominantly residential in nature and it is only the petitioners that have given a set back and that the width of the lane is just 15 feet. According to him, the petitioners have voluntarily left huge open space in front of their premises to enhance the market value and rental value. The representations are said to have been made for the past three years for arrangement of girders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The Municipal Corporation and the Police have the right to restrict and regulate the movement of vehicles in the city. If the area is predominantly residential, the movement of heavy vehicles is restricted to prevent inconvenience and accidents to the residents. The petitioners claim that part of their premises are commercial in nature. Even if that is true, mere erection of girder does not affect their rights. It is not uncommon that the heavy vehicle traffic is prevented even on main roads depending upon the volume of traffic and the use of the area. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the action of respondent No.1. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.02.2011 kdl