Point of Law: Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 indeed any of their discretionary powers.

JUDGMENT :

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in W.P. No. 6381 of 2019 by the learned single Judge, State preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent raising several contentions.

2. The parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the learned single Judge for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3. One Thota Subba Rao and 5 others filed the writ petition for issue of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in altering the approved master plan of the pidimgoyyi panchayat in respect of the 80 feet proposed road by publishing the altered plan by issuing notice dated 20.07.2018 without considering the objections of the petitioners and others, by which all the residents of the locality will be affected by demolition of the residential houses industrial units and shops etc. as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the constitutional provisions particularly Article 300-A and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act and consequently direct the authorities to follow the master plan of the panchayat as was initially approved by the respondent authorities while laying the proposed 80 feet road.

4. The petitioners are the residents of Pidimgoyyi village, own houses and small scale industries at Pidimgoyyi village in the site proposed for road widening. They were granted permissions by the Panchayat long back considering the master plan only. Thus, all the petitioners along with others, who are 28 families, are the effected persons on account of the action of respondent No. 1.

5. The Municipal Corporation of Rajamahendravaram was earlier a municipality, now upgraded as Municipal Corporation by merging several panchayats including the Pidimgoyyi panchayat in which the property of the petitioners was located. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had an idea of developing the city but not in accordance with law and have been acting at the behest of a few disgruntled and selfish elements, due to which common men like the petitioners are facing major life threatening problems. The original master plan of Pidimgoyyi Grampanchayat clearly show the 100 feet road between Survey numbers 330 and 333 from east-west and the 80 feet proposed road as shown in the master plan from south to north joins the 100 feet road through Morampudi junction. There exists a 200 feet road junction known as Morampudi junction at S. No. 332 in Pidimgoyyi, which is not far away from the point where the proposed 80 feet road joins the 100 feet Morampudi junction road. In fact, it is about 100 mts. Further, on the western side of Morampudi junction, there exists a similar situation of a 40 feet road joining the Morampudi road and with another 60 feet road on the other side of the Morampudi road. But that was not made into a 4 road junction as the 200 feet national high way at Morampudi junction is not far away. Thus, the idea of making the proposed 80 feet road joining another 80 feet road from north to south at the Morampudi junction road is unnecessary, illegal, arbitrary and also at the cost of a colony and houses of the petitioners, small scale industries and shops, which is not permissible and appreciable. Thus, the action of altering the 80 feet road design of the master plan only to make the four road junction is unnecessary. Taking into consideration the original approved master plan of the Pidimgoyyi panchayat, the surrounding colonies were developed and all houses, industries and shops were sanctioned considering the original master plan of the panchayat. The petitioners built houses and established small scale industries and living on the income derived from such business in that area and about 28 families are residing there on no alteration basis, for decades together in accordance with the master plan of the panchayat. As a matter of fact, the principle of legitimate expectation of the petitioners is to protect them from the illegal a