HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 11700 of 2009 DATED: 25.09.2009 Between: Suprabhath Nagar Colony Welfare Association .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, GHMC Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER: The petitioner, which claims to be the Welfare Association of the residents of Suprabhath Nagar Colony, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent- Corporation in laying Road Under Bridge across the Suprabhath Nagar Colony Park situated at Balkampet, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrarily, and consequently to prohibit the respondent-Corporation from converting the park into a road. This Court, on 17.06.2009, at the request of the learned Standing Counsel, while posting the matter to 22.06.2009 for further consideration, directed the parties to maintain status quo till 22.06.2009. Thereafter, the matter underwent two adjournments at the request of the learned Standing Counsel for filing counter in the matter. Ultimately, while issuing Rule nisi on 13.07.2009, this Court extended the interim order, dated 17.06.2009, until further orders. Subsequently, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Corporation denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that a new link road of length 4.40 km connecting Rajbhavan Road to Fathenagar ROB is proposed for reducing the traffic congestion on NH-9 i.e., road between Erragadda and Khairatabad Junction and that the Government has even accorded administrative sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.316, dated 13.04.2005. It is also stated that M/s.RITES Consultants have submitted a detailed project report and recommended for construction of RUB (Road Under Bridge) instead of ROB (Road Over bridge) for crossing the railway track at Suprabathnagar near the open space as it is most feasible since the railway track height is sufficient for construction of RUB, so as to connect Balkampet road. It is further stated that the alignment of road at Suprabathnagar Colony was originally proposed as two-way road after RUB, by widening the existing 40’ wide road in the colony to 60’ road. However, on the representation of the residents of Suprabathnagar colony, the alignment is changed to two one-way roads, keeping the existing 40’ road as one-way road and the adjacent road as the other one-way road after RUB, so as to avoid the removal of the existing buildings and structures of the Colony. It is categorically stated that the area proposed to be used for construction of the road comes under Zonal Development Regulations vide layout, dated 05.08.1983, and hence, the Corporation is empowered to use the public space for the public purpose. Furthermore, the respondent-Corporation has even enclosed photographs of the open space, where the proposed road is going to be laid, to the counter affidavit, to show that the said open space is not being used as a park at all and it is kept idle without any use to public. It is also stated that the Corporation has proposed to utilize a part of the public open space for construction of road/RUB, leaving 2/3rd of the open space as it is for the purpose of developing the same as a well maintained park for recreation of the public, instead of keeping the same without any public purpose. It is, therefore, stated that no inconvenience would be caused to the members of the petitioner- Association as the proposed road is intended to reduce the traffic congestion in the area. Thereafter, at one stage, this Court has even heard the Officer concerned of the respondent-Corporation in the matter at length. Subsequently, the parties have held negotiations and on the suggestion given by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Engineer-in-Chief of the respondent-Corporation to the following effect: “It is submitted that in pursuance of the above direction, the Respondent Corporation hereby undertakes to provide access to the existing individual houses which are getting affected in the construction of the road near proposed construction of RUB at Suprabhath Nagar near Balkampet, Hyderabad by constructing access to these existing houses to enable them to have access to their houses from the newly formed road.” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. A bare reading of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- Corporation makes it clear that the respondent-Corporation has proposed to lay a new link road of length 4.40 km connecting Rajbhavan Road to Fathenagar ROB for reducing the traffic congestion on NH-9 and for that purpose, the Government has even accorded administrative sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.316, dated 13.04.2005. On the recommendations of M/s.RITES Consultants and the Railway Department, the respondent-Corporation has proposed to construct RUB (Road Under Bridge) instead of ROB (Road Over bridge) for crossing the railway track at Suprabathnagar near the open space, as it is most feasible, since the railway track height is sufficient for construction of RUB, so as to connect Balkampet road. It is pertinent to note here that though the alignment of road at Suprabathnagar Colony was originally proposed as two-way road after RUB, by widening the existing 40’ wide road in the colony to 60’ road, on the representations of the residents of Suprabathnagar colony, the alignment was changed to two one-way roads, keeping the existing 40’ road as one-way road and the adjacent road as the other one-way road after RUB, so as to avoid the removal of the existing buildings and structures of the Colony. Further, the respondent-Corporation in its counter affidavit has categorically stated that it has proposed to utilize a part of the public open space in question for construction of road/RUB, leaving 2/3rd as it is for the purpose of developing the same as a well maintained park for recreation of the public, instead of keeping the same without any public purpose. In view of the above, it is clear that the interests of the members of the petitioner-Association are well protected. That the road as proposed is for public purpose, particularly to reduce the traffic congestion on NH-9 i.e., road between Erragadda and Khairatabad Junction. The respondent-Corporation has also filed an affidavit (as extracted supra) that it is going to provide access to the existing individual houses, if any, which are going to be affected in laying the proposed road. In the circumstances, I see no merits in the writ petition to grant the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order of status quo, dated 17.06.2009, which was extended until further orders on 13.07.2009, shall stand dissolved. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dt.25.09.2009 VGB