THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.9580 of 2010 Dated 24th August, 2011 Between: Ganesh Nagar Residents Welfare Association …Petitioner And Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside orders, dated 06.02.2010 and 19.02.2010, of respondent No.1. The petitioner is a welfare association of the residents of Ganesh Nagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam. Respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are obviously the members of Vasavi Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) have constructed a multi-storeyed building and applied to respondent No.1 for permission to construct a culvert over an existing drainage channel in order to have access to a road of 20’ width. The petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.229 of 2010 for a direction to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to protect the municipal drainage from encroachment by respondent Nos.2 to 4. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing that the petitioner’s representation, dated 08.01.2010, shall be disposed of after inspection of the site in question. It was further directed that on such inspection if it is found that encroachment has been made in the site, necessary steps shall be taken by issuing notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4. After disposal of the said writ petition, both the parties made representations which were considered and disposed of by the Commissioner of respondent No.1 by two separate orders, the purport of which, appears to be the same. A perusal of this order would show that the officers concerned have inspected the site and that while according permission for construction of apartment building by the Corporation on 20.08.2008, two approaches were shown from Ganesh Nagar Road to the apartment building, subject to the condition that separate permission shall be taken for construction of slab culverts. It is further stated that accordingly, the members of the Society have made an application requesting for permission for construction of slab culverts to get access from the existing Ganesh Nagar Road to the apartment building. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the Commissioner in his order, dated 06.02.2010, stated as under: “Regarding permission for construction 2 No’s slab culverts across the existing gedda, the Ganesh Nagar is a weaker section colony and the only approach that they have is existing 20’-0” wide road, by the side of gedda. Permission for construction of two slab culverts as approved in the building plan, vide reference 1st cited, will adversely affect the colony residents and may also adversely affect the flow of storm water in the gedda.” By a separate order, dated 19.02.2010, the Commissioner granted permission to the Vasavi Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Limited for construction of a slab culvert subject to the condition that the same shall not in any way adversely affect the flow of storm water. The Commissioner further directed that to avoid inconvenience to the residents of the areas, the GVMC will make efforts in coordination with the residents of Ganesh Nagar and the Society to ensure that there shall be no such inconvenience to the residents of the area by grant of permission for construction of slab culvert. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for GVMC appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. All that respondent No.1 has done is grant of permission for construction of culvert across the existing drainage. I have perused the photographs filed by the petitioner, which would belie its contention that the slab across the drainage would in any manner hinder free flow of drainage water. Since the Commissioner of respondent No.1- Corporation has provided proper safeguards to avoid inconvenience to the residents of the area, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by him. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12350 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th August, 2011 VGB