High Court · 2012

Order

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in allotting site, which is road/road margin, in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and also the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in proposing to construct 33/11 Sub-Station on the road/road margin abutting the southern wall of the petitioner’s College as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s College was established in the year 1971 in an extent of Ac.10-00 and odd of land. Initially, the petitioner’s college was having intermediate, B.A., B.Com and B.Sc courses with strength of about 800 students.

Subsequently in the year 1974, postgraduate course in Commerce was started in a separate building. In due course, post graduate courses such as M.B.A., M.C.A M.Sc. (Electronics), Physics, Microbiology, Bio-Chemistry, Chemistry, Computer Science, Mathematics, English etc., were started. Now, the strength of the petitioner’s institution is about 2400. It is further stated that the Municipal road popularly known as ring road exists on the Southern side of the petitioner’s college. There is only one entrance to the petitioner’s college and the same is on the southern side of the college premises abutting ring road. Abutting the college gate, there is a bus stop leading to the District Collector’s office, Railway Station and Bus stand.

Further, the ring road, which is of a width of 49.38 meters, is a busy road as the same connects many important places of Guntur town. Abutting the southern wall of the petitioner’s college, there is a cycle shed and abutting the cycle shed, there is a playground for the students to play Volleyball and Cricket. Further, there is “Bajarang Jute Mill’ opposite to the petitioner’s college in which thousands of workers are working. In such a situation, if the Sub-Station is constructed on the road or road margin, the entire traffic would come to stand still. To meet heavy traffic, a fly over bridge was constructed recently over the railway line and the same starts from the entrance gate of the petitioner’s college.

In such a situation, If 33/11 K.V. sub- station is constructed by the respondents, there is likely hood of danger to the lives of the students. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 filed caveats dated 25-03-2010 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the petitioner’s College and also some others stating that an extent of 450 sq. yards of site was handed over by the 3rd respondent for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station in order to facilitate the distribution of power supply. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent has accorded permission for construction of the aforesaid Sub-Station. The 3rd respondent has not right or authority to allot or handover road or road margin in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and that respondents 1 and 2 have no right to construct 33/11 K.V.

Sub-station. Hence, the present writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s institution is an old institution established in the year 1971, wherein though it was started with a strength of 800 students, now the strength of the petitioner’s institution is about 2400. The 3rd respondent accorded permission for construction of the aforesaid Sub-Station. If the said construction takes place, it causes not only inconvenience to the general public but also to the management of the petitioner’s College and the students. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has no authority to allot the land within the road margin to respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of construction of 33/11 K.V.

Sub-Station. He further submits that at the time of making construction of 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station, when the petitioner’s College raised objection, respondents 1 and 2 have assured that the said construction is temporary for a period of 2 or 3 months and thereafter it would be shifted to other place. Therefore, the petitioner thought that the construction of 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station is only for a limited period and thereafter it would be shifted. But, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any steps to shift the same. Therefore, he submits that if respondents do not take any action for shifting 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station from the existing place to some other place, it causes not only inconvenience to the general public but also to the management of the petitioner’s College and the students.

Therefore, he seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for. In the present case, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. However, it is the contention of the petitioner’s College that the 3rd respondent has allotted site to respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of construction of 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station. Respondents 1 and 2 have started construction of the said 33/11 K.V. sub-station within the road margin abutting the southern boundary wall of the petitioner’s college, which is causing inconvenience to the local people and also to the students of the petitioner College. At the initial stage, when the petitioner raised an objection in making construction, respondents 1 and 2 have assured that construction of 33/11 K.V.

Sub-Station is only temporary in nature for a period of two or three months and, thereafter, the same would be shifted to other place and no steps have been taken for shifting the said 33/11 K.V. sub-station. While constructing 33/11 K.V. sub-station, it is for the authorities concerned to see that no inconvenience is caused to the public. Having regard to the averments made in the writ petition, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying or accepting the

allegations made in the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and four weeks thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 18.06.2012 Note: Issue C.C. in one week (B/o) Prv