THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.5246 of 2006 Between: M/s.Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Rep. By its Dy.General Manager And another … Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. By its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another …Respondents ORDER: Petitioners question the action of the respondents and their staff in digging pits in front of the property of the petitioners bearing premises No.1-8-435&436 situated at S.P.Road (Begumpet), Hyderabad and blocking main gates (passage) for the purpose of proposed Foot Over Bridge is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to make any construction in front of the gates of the petitioner for the purpose of proposed Foot Over Bridge in the light of the representation submitted by petitioners dated 14.3.2006. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 415 sq.yards each at premises bearing Nos.1-8-435 & 436 at S.P.Road (Begumpet), Hyderabad. Previously, during the course of widening of roads from S.P.Road leading to Begumpet, an extent of 14 feet x 9 to 2 feet (approximately 143 sq.yads) land was given on free of cost in lieu of certain benefits for construction of commercial complex etc., under G.O.Ms.No.483 M.A., dt.24.8.1998 in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings dt.19.11.2005. It is stated that while the petitioners are intending to construct commercial complex, the respondents have taken up another proposal of construction of Foot Over Bridge in front of the property of the petitioners blocking the main gates of the said premises. It is stated that the petitioners have filed objections by way of representation on 14.3.2006 before the first respondent stating that the inconvenience that is going to be caused to the petitioners can be avoided by changing the alignment of the said Foot Over Bridge. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. I am not inclined to express any opinion whether it is possible for the respondents to change the alignment of the Foot Over Bridge or not. But, however, it is for the first respondent to consider and dispose of the said representation dated 14.3.2006. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 14.3.2006 after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ (V.ESWARAIAH, J.) 17.3.2006 Note: Issue copy within two days B.O kpr