IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6351 of 2008 Between: 1 St.Ann's Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri P. Madhusudhan Rao R/o.H.No. 10-1/3, PRemvijayanagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 2 P. Madhusudhan Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o. West Marredpally, Secunderabad, Harmani Havins. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managting Director. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Circle, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by itrs Managing Director. 5 Raghava Rao S/o. Jaganadham C/o.Plot No. 7 & 8, Prem-Vijayanagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in allowing the 5th Respondent in proceeding with construction in Plot 7 and alleged Plot No.8 of Mirjalaguda Village of Malkajigiri , Ranga Reddy District for locating a petrol bunk in illegal, arbitrary and its violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.BHARADWAJ REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.M.SURENDER REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR HUDA. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GOVT. PLEADER FOR REVENUE. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. A.SUDARSHAN REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioners claim to be owners and possessors of plot Nos.9, 9A, 11, 12, 13 and 114(a) in Mirjalaguda, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. They constructed a complex for running educational institutions. The 1st petitioner is a society registered under A.P. Telangana Area Societies Registration Act in the year 1981. According to the petitioners, the 5th respondent purchased plot No.8 comprising S.No.730/1 admeasuring 286 square yards. It is the case of the petitioners that 286 square yards in plot No.8 is earmarked for locating a park as per the approved lay out. The 5th respondent submitted application to HUDA seeking permission for construction of a petrol bunk. 1st respondent accorded approval and communicated the same to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri-2nd respondent and thereupon, 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent to re-consider the issue. The petitioners made a representation dated 17.01.2008 to the Commissioner, GHMC raising their objections for granting permission to the 5th respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Malkajgiri is stated to have granted technical approval. While so, the 5th respondent is going ahead with the construction activity to install a petrol bunk. If the petrol bunk is installed, the life of the children pursuing in the petitioners- institutions would be in danger. Granting of ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the authorities to locate a petrol bunk adjacent to petitioners-institutions, according to the petitioners, is without application of mind. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in allowing the 5th respondent in proceeding with the installation of the petrol bunk is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. While ordering notice before admission, the 5th respondent has been restrained from making any further constructions for establishing the petrol bunk at the site in question. 3. The 5th respondent entered appearance and filed WVMP.No.2931 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 26.3.2008. The counter affidavit of the 5th respondent, in brief, is that this respondent purchased plot Nos.6, 7, 8A and 8B admeasuring 1,146 square yards. Plot Nos.7, 6A and 8A and 8B are all residential plots and none of the plots is earmarked for park. The respondent established the petrol bunk and the entire work came to be completed on 31.3.2008. There is no violation of any of the rules framed under the Petroleum Act and the Rules. This respondent secured permission under Explosives Substances Act and ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Roads and Buildings Department. This respondent invested Rs.40.00 lakhs for the purpose of establishing the petrol bunk. The petitioners resorted to filing this writ petition, as this respondent did not comply with their unjustified demands. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the 1st respondent; learned Standing Counsel for HUDA appearing for the 2nd respondent; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 3rd respondent; learned Standing Counsel for BPCL appearing for the 4th respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Plot No.8 is not earmarked for residential purpose and in fact it is earmarked for location of a park and therefore, permission accorded to the 5th respondent for installing a petrol bunk therein is contrary to the Zoning Regulations. A further submission has been made that Plot No.7 is earmarked for residential purpose and therefore, the 5th respondent cannot be permitted to install the petrol bunk therein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also refer various provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the 5th respondent purchased Plot Nos.6, 7, 8A and 8B and none of the plots is earmarked for park. He further submits that he obtained necessary permission from HUDA and ‘No Objection Certificates’ from the concerned authorities to install a petrol bunk in the premises owned by him. The learned counsel took me to the permissions accorded by the HUDA, Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri, and ‘No Objection Certificates’ issued by the Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the Divisional Fire Officer, Mahaboobnagar and the Executive Engineer, Roads Division, Hyderabad. 8. I have perused the permission accorded by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and ‘No Objection Certificates’ issued by the various authorities. The 5th respondent is proceeding with the installation of petrol bunk in the plots owned by him after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities as well as ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned municipality. Therefore, installation of petrol bunk on the sites owned by the 5th respondent cannot be categorized as illegal. 9. The principal grievance of the petitioner appears to be that Plot No.8 is earmarked for park. The petitioner failed to place on record any material to show that Plot No.8 is earmarked for locating a park. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent is proceeding with the construction for installing a petrol bunk in an area earmarked for a park has no substance. The 5th respondent secured all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities before proceeding with the construction for installing a petrol bunk. The 5th respondent has categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that he completed the work of the installation of petrol bunk as on 31.03.2008. It is a matter of record that the 5th respondent secured necessary permissions from the concerned authorities before proceeding with the construction for installation of a petrol bunk. 10. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. Interim stay granted on 26.03.2008 stands vacated. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}