THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 17991 OF 2007 WEDNESDAY THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 Between:- M. Lakshma Reddy and others. ..Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 17991 OF 2007 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) A third alignment identified by the State for forming the Outer Ring Road is challenged in this writ petition by the residents of Kongararavirala, Thukkuguda, Mankhal villages of Maheshwaram Mandal and Kongara Kalan of Ibrahimpatnam village, in Ranga Reddy District. The State Government in 2004 approved a policy for formation of an Outer Ring Road for the Hyderabad Metropolitan area of approximately 158 kilometers in length. In April, 2005 a notification was issued detailing the contours of the proposed Outer Ring Road under which the Ring Road was to pass through the villages wherein the petitioners are resident. The petitioners and others complained and the Government in G.O.Rt.No.87, I&I (IID-2) Dept., dated 02-11-2005 constituted an alignment Committee which received the several objections and furnished a report on 02-12- 2005 to the Government. Thereupon the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 8 Infrastructure &Investment (IID-2) Department dated 12-12-2005 purporting to be the ‘final’ alignment of the Outer Ring Road. By these orders the State Government accorded approval for the recommendations as to alignment set out in the report of the Committee on alignment. Under this ‘final’ alignment the villages where the petitioners are resident were bypassed. Thereafter Chairman of the alignment Committee appears to have sensitized the Government that the State had proposed a policy for establishing a FAB CITY near Thukkuguda area in about 1200 acres identified by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and that the alignment notified in G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 12-12-2005 cuts through the area proposed for establishing the FAB CITY. The FAB CITY authorities also appear to have impressed upon the alignment Committee at a meeting held on 15-02-2006 as to the deleterious affects of the expressway passing/cutting through the embryonic FAB CITY and sought change of the alignment. On the basis of this representation, the alignment Committee with the assistance of a consultant, conducted a detailed survey on the northern side of the alignment finalized in G.O.Ms.No.8. Consequent on the report of such survey, the alignment Committee recommended another alignment and sought approval of the Government for such revised alignment. By the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.4 Infrastructure & Investment (IID-2) Department dated 25-03-2006, the Government accorded approval for the revised alignment as proposed by the alignment Committee. Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assails the alignment as approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 4 dated 25-03-2006 on the ground that it adversely impacts the petitioners’ rights and that the government policy involved in according approval to the current alignment irrationally prioritizes the interests of the FAB CITY while subordinating the petitioners’ interests. The petitioners and other villagers of the involved villages will be uprooted from their habitat and will merely be paid compensation in lieu of their land holdings causing habitat and cultural displacement, is the substantive submission. The alignment of a road including the Outer Ring Road is normatively within executive policy choices. The current alignment approved in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25-03-2006 is identified after a report of consultants. Whether the alignment should have the contour as now approved or should have a contour as per the earlier G.O.Ms.No.8 which bypasses the petitioners’ villages is a matter of policy choice that should normally vests with the executive. It is not within the consecrated jurisdiction of this Court to sit in an appeal to the policy choice of the executive. In the absence of any showing that such choice falls foul of any law, no such showing is presented in this writ petition, this Court cannot interfere. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reasons to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 30-08-2007 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 23072 of 2007 stands dissolved. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated: 16-09-2009 Pvks/*