IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24372 of 2004 Between: 1 T. Shankar, S/o Paidaiah, R/o Pedda Jalaripeta, Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 2 O. Bosanna, S/o Gedanna, R/o 5-2-27, Pedda Talaripeta, Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 3 P. Rambabu, S/o Pydiah, R/o 6-12-25/A, Rajakaveedhi, Chinnawaltair, Visakhapatnam. 4 K. Srinivas, S/o K.V.K. Rao, R/o 8-31-2, Tamilstreet, Chinnawaltair, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), rep., by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 3 District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. ...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, or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seeking to give away the right to sell entrance tickets to VUDA park Phase-I and Phase-II without incorporating the details of approved statutory roads path ways used by the petitioners and the families as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to take any steps which will lead to close/block these roads, path ways mentioned in Waltair Ward Part-III town planning scheme of G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 9-02-84 either permanently or temporarily and give full access to local residents like the petitioners through these roads and pass such order or other orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they are the fishermen of Chinawaltair and Pedajalaripet of Visakhapatnam and they go to the sea for fishing everyday using the roads notified by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) as approved as per G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 09.02.1984 and the said roads are their life line as they give access to transport from their place of work. The said roads are sought to be closed affecting their rights of ingress and egress from their houses to the sea. They further submit that when they approached the Municipal Authorities in 2004 raising objections the authorities promised that they would be permit them to make use of the said roads. Presently the VUDA parks are sought to be given to private contractors at upset amount of Rs.15 lakhs per year and the private contractor would not permit them and their families to use these roads. It is stated that only pass holders going to the Gym, horse riding etc. are permitted and they are prevented from making use of the said roads. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the grievance of the petitioners that the VUDA took a decision to lease out maintenance of VUDA Park Phase I and II without taking steps to protect the rights of the petitioners is not at all correct. As a matter of fact, VUDA has not leased out maintenance of the aforesaid parks but has only issued a notification in respect of the right to sell the entrance tickets of VUDA Parks Phase I and II but not for maintenance. It is further stated that the fishermen are not at all prevented from walking through the said roads. VUDA Park has been developed with a view of give a breathing place to the citizens of Visakhapatnam in the year 1985 itself, which has been facilitated with children play equipment, boat sikar, caves, lawns, gardens and other children attractive things in the park. Insofar as the parks are concerned the right of entry is restricted. It is further stated that there is no change in the master plan with regard to the existing road and the VUDA Park is consisting of 50 acres only and the other area is open to the beach and in the VUDA Park also entrance to beach has been provided. With regard to the specific allegation that certain roads have been proposed to close, it is stated that no roads have been proposed for closure as pleaded by the petitioners and no roads have been fenced as alleged by the petitioners. VUDA parks were not at all given to the private persons except decided to collect the entry fee to the VUDA Park alone. The park was not given under the control of any private contractor and the tender notification is issued only for the rights to sell the tickets and it is not in violation of sanctioned town planning scheme and also CRZ regulations. 3. In view of the aforesaid counter, I am of the opinion that none of the rights of the petitioners have been affected in any way by way of maintaining the VUDA parks and the entry is restricted only to the VUDA parks by collecting fee. It is categorically stated that no roads have been closed and the petitioners are not prevented to go the sea or to the beach. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 1, 2008 DSK