IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9447 of 2004 Between: Smt. Gunda Venugopalamma W/o. Sri G.Guru Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India KM 2/8, Old Diary Farm, Hanumanthwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings State of A.P. Visakhapatnam. 3 The Regional Manager APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. 4 VisakhapatnamUrban Development Authority represented by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 5 Gajuwaka Municipality represented by its Commissioner, Gajuwaka. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the proposed action of the respondents tocreate a bus bay with a bus stop in front of the complex of the petitioner in S.No.31.6 T.D.No.60, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed and violate the cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right of ingress and egress of vehicles into the coplex and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 9447 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of a mandamus to declare that the proposed action of the respondents to create a bus-bay in the bus stop in front of the complex of the petitioner in Sy.No.31/6, T.D.No.60, of Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of Ac.0-26 cents of land in Sy.No.389/3A/1(new Sy.No.31/6), T.D.No.60, Gajuwaka village having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.5.1969 with registered document No.1841 of 1969. It is stated that after leaving about 200 feet of land for the proposed widening of the road, he has constructed a commercial complex by obtaining necessary permission from the local authority i.e., the then Gram Panchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there is no existing bus stop and the respondents are trying to construct a bus-bay in front of the complex, which, if allowed, would become hindrance for ingress and egress of vehicles entering the complex. It is also stated that though he requested the respondents not to construct such a bus-bay in front of the complex, no steps have been taken to stop it and the respondents are proceeding with the construction of such bus-bay. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim order in W.P.M.P.12090 of 2004 directing respondents not to interfere with the right of ingress and egress of vehicles into the complex of the petitioner situated at S.No.31/6. The said order continued all along. In spite of service of notice, no counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent and also there is no appearance on his behalf. However, a counter affidavit is filed by the law officer of A.P.S.R.T.C. In his counter affidavit, it is stated that that there is already a bus stop and the Deputy Executive Engineer, Visakhapatnam Sub-Division had visited the same. It is stated that the said bus stop was constructed by UNIADS, an advertising agency, over municipal drain which is situated 30 feet away from the front side of the business complex of the petitioner. It is stated that, in no way it obstructed the right of the petitioner for ingress and egress of the vehicles to the business complex. It is further stated that the decision to construct new bus stops by creating bus-bays is the decision taken by the office of the Project Director of the National Highways Authority of India. In the absence of any clear material showing the road width and road facing of the building complex constructed by the petitioner, it is not possible to decide whether construction of such bus-bay will be a hindrance to the ingress and egress for the vehicles entering the complex of the petitioner. In the absence of a counter affidavit of the 1st respondent and taking into consideration that there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner for the last about five years, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposed construction of bus-bay within a period of eight weeks from today. On filing such objections, if there is a proposal for construction of such a bus-bay, at present, the 1st respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner and communicate a reasoned order to the petitioner. Till such consideration and appropriate orders are passed by the 1st respondent, no further steps shall be taken for construction of the bus-bay. It is also made clear that if no representation is filed as such, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the construction of bus-bay in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ 11-6-2009 asp