IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3162 of 2009 Between: P. Srihari Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Subba Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G. Elisha The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3162 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in changing the location for construction of Integrated Social Welfare Hostel Complex from Yerrannagudem to Chinnayagudem of Devarapalle Mandal, West Godavari District ignoring letter dated 14.06.2008 addressed by the donor of the land in Sy.No.496 of Yerrannagudem village as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to reconsider the change of location for construction of the said hostel from Yerrannagudem to Chinnayagudem. The petitioner is a self-styled social worker and a resident of Yerrannagudem, West Godavari District. Two parcels of land, one of which admeasuring Ac.2.82 cents in Sy.No.496/5 of Yerrannagudem Village was donated by one Bollina Ganga Raju for construction of Zilla Parishad High School and that after his death, his wife Smt. Savitri donated another extent of Ac.3.00 for providing playground to the said school. When the social welfare department sought to construct a hostel, after removing the dilapidated school buildings, Smt. Savitri filed Writ Petition No.20669 of 2007 and some of the local people filed Writ Petition No.14796 of 2008 questioning the proposed location of hostel. During the pendency of those Writ Petitions, the respondents have shifted the location of hostel to Chinnayagudem from Yerrannagudem. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that Smt. Savitri, intending to retain the hostel at the place donated by her, addressed letter dated 14.06.2008 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, requesting him to continue with the proposals for locating the hostel on the property donated by her. It is the further case of the petitioner that Smt. Savitri was persuaded to withdraw Writ Petition No.232 of 2008 filed by her, which was accordingly dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.11.2008 and that she also withdrew Writ Petition No.20669 of 2007 on 21.11.2008. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the shifting of the hostel. After hearing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason. In the first place, the petitioner is unable to show his interest in the dispute. Even if he assisted Smt. Savitri in filing the Writ Petitions earlier, that by itself will not clothe him with any right to question the action of the respondents in shifting the location of the hostel from the site donated by the donors to another place. It is also not the pleaded case of the petitioner that Smt. Savitri has either authorized him to litigate on her behalf or that she is incapable of filing this Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain this Writ Petition. Even on merits, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner failed to plead much less substantiate that the proposed shifting of the hostel is in violation of any of the statutory or constitutional rights of any person much less the petitioner. From the admitted facts, it is clear that the two parcels of the properties were gifted by the donors for the purpose of construction of a school and for providing a playground to it. Therefore, non-location of hostel in the said properties cannot be termed as contrary to the intention of the donors, as reflected in the gift deeds. On the other hand, it facilitates the purpose for which the properties have been donated. On the premises as above, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.4095 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1633 of 2009 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.03.2011 ES