THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17862 of 1999 Date: 13.02.2008 Between: Dr. B.N. Reddy & another. … Petitioners AND The Municipal Council, rep., by its Commissioner, Nizamabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Smt. K.V. Rajasree Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17862 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition was originally filed for the following substantive relief: “… … Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (i) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not protecting the 40’ public road from Bank Colony, Yellammagutta to 100’ main road situated at Nizamabad town from respondents 2 and 3 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to open the public road from Bank Colony, Yellammagutta to 100’ main roadsituated at Nizamabad town for public use; (ii) declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in blocking 40’ road from Bank Colony Yellammagutta to main road 100’ situated at Nizamabad town as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the blockade and permit the general public to use the said road and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for amendment, which was allowed and the amended prayer reads as under: “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 Certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.652 M.A. dated 17.11.1999, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H-I) Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioners are the residents of Bank Colony, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. The municipal road was blocked by Nizamabad police. One Sri G. Laxma Reddy and another, aggrieved by the said action, filed O.S.No.123 of 1991 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for mandatory injunction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to dismantle the wall and to remove the obstruction on the public road. The suit was decreed and the judgment and decree became final. The plaintiffs filed E.P.No.46 of 1991 for execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, orders were passed by the Supreme Court convicting the officers responsible for disobeying the directions given in the civil appeal filed against the order passed in CRP.No.2433 of 1995. In order to comply with the said order of the Supreme Court, the disputed wall was removed and E.P. was accordingly closed. In January, 1999, the police again placed barricades on the road, preventing the residents of the locality from using the said road. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister for redressal of their grievance, but no action was taken by him. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petition. On 17.11.1999, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.652, dated 17.11.1999 by which the existing 40 feet road was deleted from the master plan and the said G.O. is challenged in this writ petition by way of an amendment. Heard Smt. K.V. Rajasri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and perused the record. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Director working in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P., it is averred that respondent No.1 forwarded a proposal for deletion of 40 feet road included in the master plan, which was passing through the police headquarters wherein it was stated that representation was made by the police administration of the district that due to threat by naxalites to the police personnel residing in the police quarters, there is need for blocking the road, that the site was inspected by the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipality and the matter was discussed on 31.12.1998 and accordingly a resolution was passed, which was forwarded to the Government through the Director of Town and Country Planning as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 (for short, ‘the 1920 Act’), that after examining the resolution of the municipal council, the Government published draft notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part-I, extraordinary on 27.09.1999 under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the 1920 Act inviting objections, that the Government having not received any objections and suggestions from any person including the petitioners, issued G.O.Ms.No.652 dated 17.11.1999, whereunder the 40 feet road passing through the police headquarters, Nizamabad, was deleted from the master plan of Nizamabad. It is further averred that the deletion of 40 feet wide road has no impact on or inconvenience to the general public. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed separate counter-affidavits in which it is mentioned that Nizamabad is one of the North Telengana Districts, which is highly infested with PWG Naxals, that in the police headquarters, which are adjacent to the Bank Colony where the petitioners are residing, there are about 200 police persons living and that majority of them are targeted by the PWG Naxals. It is further averred that the Bell of Arms (Arms and Ammunition) and District Police Office building are situated in the police lines, which are nearer to the Bank Colony and that since the District is highly affected by the Naxal violence, the police instructed to construct the wall in 1991 to safeguard the lives of their personnel. It is further averred that there are two roads for Bank Colony apart from the road in dispute, which connect the main road. It is also averred that under Section 171 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the 1965 Act’), the Municipality has to maintain roads and that the Government has got power to close any road permanently. That under Section 172 (c) of the 1965 Act, the council inter alia, subject to sanction of the Government, is empowered to permanently close any public street or part thereof. As noted above, the Joint Director representing the Government stated in categorical terms that the Government has followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the 1920 Act for modification of the master plan by deleting the 40 feet road passing through the police lines. This was done on the resolution passed by the municipal council in exercise of its powers vested in it by Section 172 (c) of the 1965 Act. Though, it is specifically contended in the counter-affidavits that the petitioners failed to file any objections to the draft notification issued for modification of the master plan, they have neither controverted the same nor produced any evidence to show that they filed their objections. Not only that the petitioners failed to object to the proposed modification of the master plan, but they have not pleaded that the deletion of the road from the master plan suffers from any procedural or other illegalities. The petitioners have not denied the allegation that the area in which the disputed road is located is seriously affected by the extremists’ violence and that there are persistent threats to the police personnel living in that area. Since the safety of the police personnel is evidently the reason for closing of the road and the petitioners failed to make out any illegality in closing the road, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the decision taken by the respondents to close the road. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22274 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.02.2008 ES