THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.28208 of 2009 Dated:27.01.2010 Between: Jaatiya Rahadari Nirvasithula Sangham. …Petitioner and The Government of India, Rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways, New Delhi, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.28208 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Jaatiya Rahadari Nirvasithula Sangham, Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, filed the instant Writ Petition invoking Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction of this Court praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents, namely, Government of India, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the District Collector in not laying and providing bye- pass road at Chityal Village on the National Highway Road No.9 (NH9) between Hyderabad and Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to lay a bye pass road at their Village. The first respondent published various notifications in Gazette of India for Building (widening/four laning etc.,) of NH9 from Km. 62.290 to Km 126.750 in Nalgonda Revenue Division of Nalgonda District. Consequently, public notice dated 05.06.2009 under Section 3-G of the National Highway Act, 1956, was issued requiring persons interested to appear before the competent authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, and state the nature of their respective interest in such lands. The petitioner, which is an unregistered association, espouses the interest of 400 families of Chityal having business establishments in the Village adjoining/abutting the existing National Highway, which is proposed to be widened. According to the petitioner it is not feasible to lay highway road or widen the existing highway because it would result in death of villagers due to high speed of vehicles passing on the highway. According to them in such a situation if bye pass road is formed, there would not be any additional burden on the exchequer to acquire structures/other properties of the villagers. It is their further case that in respect of Narketpalle and Nakarikal Villages with lesser population, respondents are proposing a bye pass road, and Chityal is also similarly situated, and therefore, a bye pass road should be formed. Therefore, relying on certain newspaper stories reporting the objections of the villagers for widening the existing Chityal portion of NH9 they filed the instant writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made the submissions for considerable length of time. He, however, does not dispute or deny that right to a road or right to bye pass road is not an enforceable right either under the Constitution of India or any statute. He also does not dispute that the State’s power of eminent domain extends to acquiring land as well as structures including business premises for the purpose of laying or extending a national highway. Therefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived. Secondly, the issues as to whether a bye pass road should be laid to avoid property loss of the villagers and whether such bye pass road would be well suited in an area are matters, which are beyond the purview of the judiciary Court. Such issues lack adjudicative disposition and are not justiciable. Of course, if there are instances of proven mala fides on the part of the public authorities insofar as any administrative action are concerned, a writ would lie. No such mala fides are attributed to the respondents. Lastly, in such matters the remedy of any person aggrieved by a Governmental action is to bring their grievance before the public authorities. The petitioner did not do so. The petitioner is now given liberty to make a representation to respondents highlighting their point of view in widening the existing Chityal portion of NH9 and the advantages of having a bye pass road at Chityal. In this writ petition the relief, as prayed, cannot be granted. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 27.01.2010 vs