IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 6069 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Hamedullah Khan S/o. Late Mohd. Munawar Khan R/o. H.No. 11-4-615. G1 I Floor, Mythry Aptts., A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 04. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept., A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2) The Chief Engineer Panchayat Raj Division, Andhra Pradesh. 3) The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Division, Bodhan, Nizamabad Dist. ...RESPONDENTS 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 respondents for not laying of B.T. Road from Jukkal Headquarters to Mahabubpur Village, via., Siddapur Road, Nizamabad Dist. is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.HABEEB JAFFAR BIN HASAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has made a grievance with regard to the condition of a road connecting Jukkal Headquarters to Mahabubpur Village via., Siddapur Road, Nizamabad District. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 – Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 3. Upon perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and the photographs annexed along with the counter-affidavit, we find that during the pendency of the petition, the road was repaired. We have compared the photographs of the road, which were taken before filing the petition and which have been filed along with the counter-affidavit. The road now appears to be motorable and, therefore, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has, however, submitted that B.T. Road should have been constructed by the respondent authorities. 5. It is not for this Court to give direction regarding the type of road, which should be constructed because the respondent authorities have to consider several factors while deciding the type of road to be constructed. Moreover, the respondents have also to consider financial aspects before spending money from the State exchequer. 6. Prima facie, upon perusal of the photographs, we find that the road laid by the respondents is reasonably good and, therefore, we do not see any reason to give any further directions. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 28, 2009 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}