IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13847 of 2009 Between: Mukka Sudarshan S/o. Papaiah R/o. Neradigonda Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND National Highway Authority of India Rep.by its Executive Director Nirmal, Adilabad District. ....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in not granting time for erecting new pillars in respect of House bearing No. 2-23 situated at Neradigonda Village and Mandal, Adilabad District as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant time for erecting new pillars and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.S.VARMA (ADDL CGSC) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13847 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-National Highway Authority of India in not granting time for erecting new pillars in respect of House bearing No.2-23 situated at Neradigonda village and Mandal, Adilabad District, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, under instructions, stated that the compensation payable to the petitioner was paid long back and inspite of the fact that sufficient time was granted, the petitioner failed to erect new pillars for protecting the remaining structures. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. However, it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent, in which event, the same should be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the respondent and if any such application is made, the respondent shall receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such an application. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.13th July 2009 Note:- Issue C.C by 14.7.2009 (B/o) RAR THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13847 of 2009 DATED : 13-07-2009