IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25836 of 2008 BETWEEN : G. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. 1-24-360/1, Sri Sainagar Colony, Venkatapuram, Alwal, Secunderabad - 15 ..... PETITIONER AND The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to take action on the representation dt. 29-8-2008 for deleting the unwanted road dividers, which are accumulating sand and causing accidents, to remove statues which are occupying lot of space and consequently direct the respondent to take action by constructing rainwater passage besides the roads. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.D.L.PANDU Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation, wherein it has been submitted that because of the road dividers, some inconvenience is caused to the vehicular traffic. In our opinion, it is for the authorities concerned with management of traffic to decide whether at a particular place road dividers are required, and, therefore, we normally need not entertain the petition on the said issue. 2. It has been also submitted that because of road dividers, very often water is accumulated on roads during monsoon, and, therefore, necessary arrangements should be made for facilitating the water flow. 3. The learned advocate has fairly submitted that he will draw attention of the concerned officer of the Municipal Corporation with regard to the above fact, by way of a representation. If such a representation is made to the concerned authority, we are sure that the authority shall look into it and do the needful. 4. In view of the above order, the learned advocate for the petitioner does not press the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 26th November 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr