IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 17992 of 2001 Between: 1 M.S.A.Khan, S/o.M.I.H.Khan, r/o.6-3-1177/45, B.S.Maqta, Begumpet (Behind Ministers Colony) Hyderabad. 2 M.A.Raheem Khan, S/o.M.A.Lateef khan, r/o.6-3-1177/45, B.S.Maqta, Begumpet (Behind Ministers Colony) Hyderabad. 3 Tahsin Arjumand, D/o.Late Syed Imamuddin (retired Major of Indian Army), r/o.6-3-1177/45, B.S.Maqta, Begumpet (Behind Ministers Colony) Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direct the respondents to act in accordance with alw and forbear from obstructing or closing down the existing 40 feet wide public road which connects Begumpet, Somajiguda and Ameerpet to the house of the petitioner situated in B.S.Maqta, Kundanbagh, Bagumpet, Hyderabad and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioners and other locality people form using the said 40 feet wide publice road to reach their houses situated in B.S.Maqta from Ameerpet, Somajiguda and Begumpet, Hyderabad, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from closing down the existing 40 feet wide public road which connects Begumpet, Somajiguda and Ameerpet to the houses of the petitioners situated in B.S.Maqta, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad and for a further direction to the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners, and of others in the locality, from using the said 40 feet wide public road to reach their houses situated in B.S.Maqta from Ameerpet, Somajiguda and Begumpet, Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the entire premises where quarters were constructed for the Ministers in Kundanbagh belongs to Roads & Buildings Department, that the internal roads in the premises were formed by the Roads & Buildings Department, that they are not thoroughfares and that the road in question is not a public road but, however, persons from adjoining areas have been using it. It is stated that the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department, Hyderabad, had requested the Officer on Special Duty with the Honourable Home Minister, Andhra Pradesh, to ensure that the route leading to the slums on the rear side of the residence of the Honourable Home Minister be got closed, that based thereupon, a letter was addressed to the Executive Engineer (Roads & Buildings), Hyderabad, to take necessary action and, accordingly, an estimate was sent and the same was sanctioned for construction of a wall, that the work was taken up by the Department on 26-08-2001 and that some of the residents of the B.S.Maqta objected for construction of the wall on the ground that, if the road was closed, they would not have any appropriate way to reach their houses. It is further stated that there is an alternate way available to the residents of the locality to reach the Begumpet- Somajiguda main road near Blue Moon Hotel and that the width of this road varies from 20 feet to 22 feet. This Court, by its order dated 28-08-2001, directed maintenance of status quo. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that even as on date the road is being used as a public thoroughfare and that it has not been closed. The threat perception of the officials concerned relates to the year 2001 i.e. 7 years ago. Pursuant to the interim orders of status quo, the road is being used thereafter also. Ends of justice would be met if the first respondent were directed to examine the matter afresh from the security angle and take a decision on the current security situation before any steps are taken to close the road in question. However, till a final decision is taken by the first respondent in this regard, the status quo order passed earlier shall continue to remain in operation. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th November 2008 CVRK