THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6120 OF 2009 Dated: 25.08.2009 Between: Sri Vatsavai Krishnam Raju College of Engineering & Technology, Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent V. Lakshmi Surekha W/o Srinivasa Raju .. Petitioner And Tahsildar, Palakoderu Mandal, Palakoderu, West Godavari District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: According to the petitioner College, which is said to have been established in the year 2008 at Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal of West Godavari District and located in the midst of agricultural lands, there is an approach road formed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (O.N.G.C.), for a distance of 1½ km., in between the petitioner College and the main road from Bhimavaram to Tadepalligudem via Gollalakoderu, and the petitioner College is situated at a distance of half kilometer from the ending point of that approach road. It is the case of the petitioner College that it has formed its own road in its own land for the said distance of half kilometer from the ending point of that approach road and is thereby having ingress and egress to its premises through the said approach road. It is the further case of the petitioner College that there is no other alternative road to its premises and it has been using the said approach road for the last 1½ year i.e. from the time of construction of college buildings, for passage of its vehicles, without any objection from the respondents. Further, there is an ayacut of 200 acres of agricultural wet lands on either side of the approach road and the ryots of the said lands are also using the said approach road for ingress and egress to their lands, having no other alternative passage. While so, on 21.03.2009, the respondents abruptly objected the College buses carrying the students and other vehicles coming to the College for using the said road, alleging that the road belongs to O.N.G.C. and it cannot be used without their permission, and when the staff of the College questioned the said action of the respondents pointing out that no notice whatsoever was issued, the respondents behaved in a high- handed manner stating that no notice is required to be issued, and since then, they are not permitting the vehicles of the College for passing through the said road. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to the said action of the respondents, the students and staff of the College are facing lot of hardship in reaching the College and the respondents have no authority to object their right of passage through the approach road. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 25.03.2009, passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.7999 of 2009 directing the respondents to allow the students and faculty members of the petitioner College to use their vehicles through the road in question, for a period of six weeks, and thereafter the said order was extended until further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments reiterating the contents in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Mr. K. Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the O.N.G.C., submits that the petitioner has no right whatsoever for using the road formed by the O.N.G.C. and that it is very dangerous for any vehicles to pass through the said road, as there is possibility of leakage of gas etc. He further submits that, except the agriculturists, whose lands are located on either side of the approach road, no other person shall be allowed for passing through the said road, and that civil suits are also pending between the parties in this regard. The learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court the copy of the counter filed by the O.N.G.C. in I.A.No.119 of 2009 in O.S.No.67 of 2009 filed by the 3rd respondent herein on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram, against the petitioner herein, O.N.G.C. and others. In the said counter, the O.N.G.C. has taken a stand that the O.N.G.C. has laid an approach road from Bhimavaram- Tadepalligudem Road upto its well site for the movement of its personnel, vehicles and material to carry on drilling operations and other activities in the well site, that the said road is their private road and not meant for public use and others cannot pass or take their vehicles through it, and as the lands of the farmers were taken on lease for the formation of approach road, the farmers are passing through the said approach road to their respective lands to carry on their day-to-day agricultural operations. It is further stated in the said counter that the O.N.G.C. never gave any permission to the petitioner herein to use the approach road for movement of its vehicles, persons etc. and when it was observed by the O.N.G.C. during the month of May 2008 that the petitioner institution was coming up behind the well site and was using the approach road and well site for movement of lorries and other vehicles for construction activities, the O.N.G.C. has immediately addressed to the petitioner for stopping the movement of its vehicles and personnel through the O.N.G.C. leased areas. Mr. M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent who has been impleaded on his application, contends that the 3rd respondent leased out his land to O.N.G.C. for formation of the approach road and the O.N.G.C. has been paying rents to the 3rd respondent as per the terms of the contract. He further contends that the road formed by the O.N.G.C. is a private road for the exclusive use of the O.N.G.C. and the 3rd respondent, and that the students or management staff of the petitioner College have no right to pass through the said road, and, in fact, there is a separate approach road for access to the petitioner College, which is admitted by the petitioner in the civil suit filed against it by the another land owner whose land was also taken for formation of the road. He also contends that letters have been addressed to the petitioner College by the 3rd respondent and the O.N.G.C. objecting the usage of the approach road by it, but the petitioner, suppressing all these facts and that the civil suits are pending between the parties and without making the 3rd respondent as a party, filed the present writ petition misrepresenting that the road in question is a public road, and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute. The O.N.G.C. and the 3rd respondent, who leased out his land to O.N.G.C. for formation of the road in question, have been objecting the petitioner from passing through the road in question laid by the O.N.G.C. for approach to its well site. It is the stand taken by the O.N.G.C. as well as the 3rd respondent that the road in question is a private road and not meant for public use and the petitioner has no right whatsoever to pass through the same. It is also stated by the learned Standing Counsel for O.N.G.C. that it is unsafe to pass through the said road, in view of the drilling operations being conducted by the O.N.G.C., and, hence, the agriculturists, whose lands are located on either side of the road, are only allowed to pass through it for their agricultural operations. Be that as it may, since the dispute being a private dispute and civil suits are pending between the parties in respect of the subject matter herein, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation to O.N.G.C. seeking permission for passage of its vehicles through the road in question and the said representation may be directed to be considered. I am of the opinion that no such direction can be given and, if any such representation is submitted by the petitioner, it is for the O.N.G.C. to take a decision as per law. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed and, consequently, the interim order passed on 25.03.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.7999 of 2009 stands vacated. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 25th August, 2009. Note:- Issue CC in three days. (B/o) IBL