HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.1983 of 2010 Dated: 06-09-2010 Between: Singireddy Ramana Reddy …Petitioner AND Kandukur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kandukur, Prakasam District Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.1983 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By filing this writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not forming 40 feet road from Kovvur Road to Ramatherdam Summer Storage Tank situated to the northern side of A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot as per the proposal made by the municipality and deviating the same to accommodate the encroachers upon the road as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, the respondent-Municipality has got alienation of the Government land beside the A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot admeasuring 40 feet, 685 feet length for the purpose of formation of road connecting the Kovvur Road to Ramatherdam Summer Storage Tank Road, which will be useful not only to the residents of Sainagar but also helpful to be used as a parallel main O.B. Road which is having a heavy traffic congestion. Though the proposal was made to develop 40 feet road long back, the respondent-Municipality did not take steps to form the road and ultimately, on the public demand, the respondent-Municipality decided to form the said road. However, while implementing the decision to lay the 40 feet road, the respondent-Municipality reduced the width of the road making it only at 15 feet road at some place and 25 feet at the beginning of the road to facilitate the encroachers who squatted on the public road. Hence, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent-Municipality requesting it to remove the encroachments in the said road so that 40 feet road can be formed, and that though the said notice was received on 1.2.2010, the respondent-Municipality is taking hectic action to dig the canal and complete the road in deviation to the original proposal. It is alleged that the respondent-Municipality is digging the canal to accommodate the encroachers contrary to the original proposal and in utter disregard to the public interest. Hence, the writ petition. The Commissioner of respondent-Municipality filed a counter affidavit stating that the road to the Northern side of APSRTC Depot was not alienated by the Municipality of Kandukur and that the road itself is a canal which is a part of Gram Natham. For the convenience of poor people who occupied and got pattas, ranging from 1 to 2 cents, kutcha gravel road was formed which connects from Momatikunta to Mutyalakunta, which is a dead end road, which will not be useful to Sainagar residents, and that the Sainagar locality people are having a wide road passing towards Kovur Village from Rural Police Station located to the South-West corner of the APSRTC Depot. It is stated that the said road is not a parallel road to O.B. road and that it is a dead end road. The Municipality formed a drainage canal in a straight manner for free-flow of sewage water, which resulted in reducing of the width at some places. The council never decided to lay the 40 feet road, but it decided to lay the CC road in the existing width to the convenience of poor people who got pattas previously and residing in the locality. It is stated that in the locality only 10 to 15 houses are in existence. The averments made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing reply. Therefore, when only 10 to 15 houses are in existence and that as the road is a dead end road, nobody can insist that the respondent-Municipality has to incur heavy expenditure for forming a 40 feet road, which is not at all necessary. It is for the respondent-Municipality to decide as to the formation of the road and its width keeping in view of the convenience of the locality people. No public interest is involved to be decided by this Court in this Writ Petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 06, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.