The decision of technical experts should be carefully considered, and public projects of national importance should not be lightly interfered with by the Court.

ORDER :

1. I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is filed to bring the proposed respondent as respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition as well as in the Interlocutory Application, is dismissed as I.A. No. 3 of 2021 is filed with similar prayer.

2. I.A. No. 3 is filed to bring the proposed respondent as respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition as well as in the Interlocutory Application, is allowed and the office is directed to amend the cause title as prayed for.

3. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“......to issue writ, orders or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to construct Toll Plaza adjacent to the Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institution at Sy. Nos. 137 and 138 and “Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao Ashrama Patashala” at Sy. No. 141 and Mahatma Jyothi Rao Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Junior College on the other side of the road Mopidevi (V), Krishna District (School zone) declaring their action as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the National Highways Act 1956, directing not to proceed further and pass such other orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. With the consent of all the learned counsel including the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing.

5. This Court has heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Varma, learned standing counsel for NHAI, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, who are the main answering respondents, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 4 to 6.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondents have highhandedly attempting to construct a toll plaza right next to the educational institutions, who are the petitioners. It is his contention that there are 460 students in Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institution, adjacent to the school, Government established Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao Ashrama Patashala, wherein about 310 students are studying. These schools were established for uplifting the educational standards of the children belonging to the backward communities. The institutions were later separated and renamed as Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential School. The total number of students, according to the learned senior counsel, are 1100 students as on date. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a part of the upgradation of Machilipatnam to Avanigadda national highway a toll plaza is proposed to be erected near the educational institutions. Since there would be disturbances to the schools and health hazards to the students of the institution due to this the petitioners have made representations to the authorities to relocate the said toll plaza to avoid the health hazards to the students, but the respondents are going ahead with the construction of the toll plaza. It is essential submission of the learned senior counsel that the toll plaza is being erected abetting to the institutions in a school zone. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues in line with what is stated in the writ affidavit. He also relies upon the additional affidavit that has been filed, wherein, in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, a sketch is filed showing that the toll plaza can be erected at various other places on the same road instead of next to the two educational institutions. Learned senior counsel also relies upon the Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the National Highway Authorities Act and points out that the distances specified therein are not been adhered to and toll plaza is located within 10 kms. of the said existing toll plaza. Therefore, learned senior counsel argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and gra