IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23306 of 2008 Between: Patha Gopalapatnam Gruha Yajamanulu Mariyu Nivasithula Samkshema Sangham Patha GopalapatnamVisakhapatnam rep.by its President Sri Satyanarayana Sarma S/o Late G.V.Ramanayya, D.No.17-260,Old Gopalapatnam,Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam Rep.by its Commissioner .....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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in changing the location of Flyover bridge from Gopalapatnam market area to a far away place i.e. adjacent to Zilla Parishad High School Gopalapatnam as arbitrary illegal, Mala ﬁde and Unconstitutional and grant such other necessary order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Patha Gopalapatnam Gruha Yajamanulu Mariyu Nivasithula Samkshema Sangham represented by its President G. Satyanarayana Sarma assailing the action of the respondent in changing the location of ﬂyover bridge from Gopalapatnam market area to a far away place, i.e., adjacent to Zilla Parishad High School, Gopalapatnam. The petitioner is a society registered under A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner-society that the ﬂyover bridge has been sanctioned by the respondent-corporation at Gopalapatnam Market area. The grievance of the petitioner-society is that the proposed ﬂyover bridge at Gopalapatnam Market area has been shifted to far away place leaving the residents of old Gopalapatnam in dismay. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent-corporation having proposed to construct a ﬂyover bridge at Gopalapatnam Market area is not justiﬁed in shifting the same to far away place. The material placed on record does not disclose that the respondent initially proposed to construct Flyover Bridge at Gopalapatnam Market area. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent corporation initially proposed to construct the ﬂyover bridge at Gopalapatnam Market area and subsequently it changed the place of location has no substance. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to respondent-corporation for location of flyover bridge at Gopalapatnam Market area. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 24th October, 2008 Js.