IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 28911 of 2008 Between: Dr, Barkat Ali Khan S/o. Late Waseem Ahmed R/o. 6-3-1177/35, B.S. Maqtha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Education) Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dt. 15-10-2008 which was duly acknowledged by the said authority seeking exchange of land only to entitle the writ petitioner to have a right of egress and ingress to his house property bearing Door No. 6-3- 1177/A/13/B situated in Sy. No. 216/2 & 218/2 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad as arbitrary illegal, and violative of Article 14, 21 & 30-A of Constitution of India and further restrain the respondents from in any way taking further action in the said matter which would virtually block the egress and ingress of the writ petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner submitted a representation dt. 15.10.2008 to the 1st respondent seeking exchange of Government land of 100 sq. yards for an alternative land of his own for the purpose of facilitating easy ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property, from a public road. Alleging that the 1st respondent has not considered his representation dt. 15.10.2008, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner’s representation is not a statutory representation or an appeal or revision inviting exercise of judicial scrutiny of the 1st respondent’s inaction by this Court. No mandamus could be issued to an executive agency to consider the representation submitted by a citizen in respect of a decision purely in the discretion of the executive branch represented by the 1st respondent. If there be an abuse of discretion, the court will interfere and not until then. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 28911 of 2008 Dated: 24.6.2009.