HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14916 of 2008 Date: December 22, 2009 Between: I. Madhava Reddy, S/o. Thimma Reddy, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.7/347/26, Simhapuri Colony, Kadapa Town, Kadapa District … Petitioner And The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Kadapa, Kadapa District, and another … Respondents Order: The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not laying the divider at the centre of RTC road keeping the centre point at Ambedkar statue at the Eastern tip of RTC road, Kadapa, but in moving the divider towards Northern side of RTC road by 13 feet away from the Ambedkar statue though at most of the length of the RTC road the divider was moved towards Southern side of the road as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative, on extraneous grounds and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to lay the divider at the centre of RTC road on the Eastern tip of the RTC road, Kadapa taking Ambedkar statue as the centre point instead of continuing to lay the divider at the deviated place on the Northern side of the RTC road, Kadapa.” The petitioner claims to be the owner of 5 ¼ cents of land bearing plot No.64 in Sy.No.755/5 of Chinna Chowk village, Kadapa Mandal. It is stated that he obtained building permission from the Chinna Chowk Gram Panchayat and constructed a hotel and lodge, bearing D.No.7/347, abutting RTC Road, Kadapa. His grievance is that the respondents, for the purpose of widening the RTC road, moved the road divider towards Southern side since the road is running West to East. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that initially the divider is proposed to be laid taking centre point at the Ambedkar statue, but, subsequently, respondents moved the divider towards the Northern side on the Eastern tip, which, according to the petitioner, is done intentionally to create provision for acquiring his lodge and hotel. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Kadapa on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations of the petitioner. In para-7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the statue of Ambedkar at the junction is not in the centre of the road to the 100 feet road and the question of construction of road divider along with the alignment of the statue is absolutely impossible as the road divider has to be constructed in the centre of the road, leaving the space on either side equally. It is also stated that the road widening has been made in accordance with the master plan issued by the first respondent and the construction of the road divider is exactly on the centre of the road and, as such, changing the alignment does not arise. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents are not laying the divider at the centre of RTC road keeping the centre point at Ambedkar statue at the Eastern tip of RTC road, Kadapa, but in moving the divider towards Northern side of RTC road by 13 feet away from the Ambedkar statue. However, respondents, in the detailed counter affidavit filed, have explained that the statue of Ambedkar at the junction is not in the centre of the road to the 100 feet road and the question of construction of road divider along with the alignment of the statue is absolutely impossible as the road divider has to be constructed in the centre of the road, leaving space on either side equally. When the road divider is being constructed in the centre of the road, leaving space on either side equally, the said action of the respondents seems justifiable and the same cannot be found fault with. Further, the issue as to where the divider is to be constructed is a matter, which is to be primarily decided by the respondents-authorities by locating the centre point of the road. Merely because the place where the divider is being constructed will not suit the petitioner, he cannot question the construction of such divider. Moreover, in matters of this nature, this court cannot extend its scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 22, 2009 MRR