The High Court · 2025

4. Regalia Raja Reddy, C/o. Regalia Ranga Reddy- Aged 56 yq?rq' 9c9. Buiiness, R/o. 8-3-945 / 407, Srinilaya Enclave, Yellareddy guda, Hyderbad- 50073.

5. Sayed Shahira, Wo.Sadhik, Aged 35 Years, Occ. House wife, No 8-2-23' Golla bazar, Bhadrachalam 5O7 1 1'1.

6. Mohammad Fouzia Parveen, W/o- Afsar, Aged 54 Years, Occ. Business, R/o.15-5-62, lndira Nagar Colony, Khammam - 5Ol 002.

7. Alla Rama Rao, S/o.Narayana, Aged 67 Years, Occ. Business,No.T-3-42111' Vijaya Nagar Colony, Khahapuram Haveli, Khammam-507002. B. B. Lakkineni Satyanarayana, S/o. Kishaiah, Aged 70 Years, Occ. Business, R/o 5-33i 1, Kalluru, Khammam - 507209

9. Vadlamudi V'rjay, S/o. Rama Rao, aged 35 Years, Occ. Business, Flio. 6-3- 307/'1, Bank Coiony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam -507002.

10. Macha Ramesh, C/O Chalamaiah. Aged 56 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 7-3- 3O1 t2, Flat No.302, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam-507002 .,.APPELLANTS AND l l ! I ; l l I ,

1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. 2. The Union of ln,lia, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Clima.te Change, New Delhi.

3. National H,ighways Authority of lndia, G-5 and 6, Sector-10, Dwaraka, New Delhi -1100715.

4. The Re_gional Officer, National Highways Authority of lndia, plct No. 94. Road No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilts, Hyderabad, 500 034.

5. Project Direc.or Project lmplementation Unit l, National Hiqhwavs Authoritv of India, D.No.01'116189, mamata Hospital Road, Beside K-rishriveni Colle'ge, Khammam - t5O7002. ..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 202s Petition under Siection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugnerd order Dt. 13l3l2o2s passed in lA. No.2 of 2'.024 in wp no. 228O2 by the learnerd lsingle Judge of this Hon'ble Court until dispo sal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. PRABHAKAR, SENIOR COUNSE:L FOR SRI E. HARI BABU Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REpRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI PADMA RAO LAKKARAJU, S.C. FOR NHAI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT l I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT" JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.397 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justicb Sujoy paul) Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri E.Hari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.228O2 of 2024 dated 13.03.2A25 whereby the ex parte interim order granted by the Writ Court on 21.O8.2024 was vacated by the learned Single Judge. 4 . Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that although the impugned order is an interlocutory order, it has a 2 l final impact on the appellarts and therefore, the intra-Court appeal is. irLcr:ed, maintainable. He submits that the matter pertains to c:onstruction of Highway betu,een I\. agpur and Vij ay'wada. Inttially, the concerned Collector recorr mended for change of aligrLrnent for the proposed four line National Highway, but, since it rvas not considered, the learned SingJe Judge by ex parte interirr order directed to maintain status quo. The said position rn.as sought to be clarified by a letter dated O1.O2.2O24 addresse cl b1, tl^e concerned Principal Secretary to th< Chairrran, NHAI. On the, basis of this clarification alone, the aci i,tteim order was vacated. The appellants had also pressed the grounds relating to vagLrcness of notification and absence of enuironmental clearance u1-rir:h points have not been considered by learned Single Judge rvhile vacating the interim order. Lear-ned Senior Counsel for thr: appellants placed reliar-rce on Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shahl in suppr)rt of his submissio n s.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI supported th,: impugned order and urlled that the project is of the year 2o1tr. There is ' (2024) to scc 513 I I ; I J I i l l already a delay in execution of the project because of ex parte interim order' Needless to emphasise that it involves escaration of prices and is not in public interest. Against the interlocutory order, the writ appeal is not maintainable.

6. The parties have conhnecl their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed. 7 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. t \ l l

8. The ad interim order granted by the iearned Singte Judge on 2l-o8.2o24shows that it was solery based on the recommendation of the Collector relating to alignment. The impugned order of vacation of the interim order shows that the issue of alignment was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants" Similarly, whether other points in support of continuance of interim order, namely vagueness of notification and absence of environment clearance, were raised or not can be remembered and considered by the same Bench.

9. Thus, we find no reason to entertain this intra-Court appeal and deem it proper to dispose of this writ appeal by reserving 4 liberty to thr: appellants to file appropriate appl cation for continuance ol irLterim order/review of the impugned or,1er. \

10. With the aforesaid observations and without expressing any opinion or-r the rlerits of the case, the u,rit appeal is d.sposed of. No order as to rtol;ts. Miscellane ,rus petitions pending, if any, sha11 star_rrl closed. SD/.K.SAILESHI //rRUE coPYil \):{l::ELqIqR: t rhe Union or rncria, Ministry or Road rransport r.. -l;;t"::J;:"t- [:inll",", of tndia, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Ctimati: Change, New I:iMli:i?i#9!-avs Authoritv or rndia, G-5 and 6, secto,.-.l0, Dwaraka, I:: I".E;:i !:rlsil #;?:,#ig :ffiJ:a;:l:,t.50"5 g0," p,o : No e4 Road To, 1 2 .) 4 5 Il!X"",:rt:Tl:il[i^*ff.;1.;it3i".*;,,,fl:",,l,#,'[,Jroltr,,,ils:.:,Js?J: to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ouputy sori.itor Generat of tndia

6. One CC to SRt E. HARI BABU, Advocate [OpUC] ' i&%3i 8. One CC to SRt ptrDMA RAO LAKKARAJU, S.C. for NHA| [OpUC] 9. Two CD Cooies k4- It -J.-,- MP LS \ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 \a E STa I $c e 0 1 i'lA't li[Z i a 'o + O5'S"Ai JUDGMENT WA.No.397 ot 2025 I I i I i i I I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAI. WITHOUT COSTS tla{