THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9929 OF 2016

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“To issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the 4^th and 5^th respondents in permitting the vehicles and public through the northern side compound wall of the Court by giving way into the petitioners’ colony without implementing the orders of the 2^nd respondent addressed in letter No.101/HMDA/DEV/ S&S/2015-16 dated 22-02-2016 to the 4^th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to close the northern side dismantling compound wall of the Ranga Reddy District Complex opened for the purpose of erecting a gate and to allow the vehicles and general public to use the petitioners’ colony Roads for their vehicles and general public incoming and outgoing from the Court………”

2.1 Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.6 has opened a gate on the northern side compound wall of the Court premises, providing direct access into the petitioner’s residential colony, without implementing the orders of the 2nd respondent/HMDA, as contained in Memo dated 22.02.2016.

2.2. The learned Counsel further contends that respondent No.6 has failed to produce any permission obtained from either the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) or the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for erection of the said gate.

2.3. The learned Counsel also submits that the erection of the gate has enabled public access from the Court premises into the petitioner’s colony, resulting in significant inconvenience to the residents and increased congestion on the internal roads. Accordingly, he prays that this Hon’ble Court issue appropriate directions to restrain such unauthorized action.

3.1. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA submits that, upon representation made by respondent No.6, permission was initially granted on 30.01.2016 to erect a gate on the northern side of the Court building to facilitate access.

3.2. He further states that the layout in question was originally developed by HMDA. However, upon completion of the development, the public roads and places within the layout were duly handed over to the local municipal authority under communication dated 06.02.2012.

3.3. The learned Standing Counsel clarifies that the layout is not a gated community; rather, the roads within it are public open for use by the general public. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that the opening of a gate by the Court onto a public road is unlawful or lacks legal basis is untenable.

3.4. The learned Standing Counsel adds that he has no specific instructions regarding further proceedings subsequent to the impugned communication dated 22.02.2016, whereby HMDA directed respondent No.6 to stop construction until further orders. Nevertheless, he maintains that, as the layout consists of public roads not forming part of a private or gated community, the petitioner’s contention lacks contractual or statutory foundation.

Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Learned Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/GHMC submits that no correspondence was made with respondent No.6 regarding the erection of the gate. However, since the internal roads within the layout are public roads, no specific permission is required for providing access thereto. Accordingly, he also prays for appropriate orders.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s contention is that respondent No.6 erected the gate without requisite permission, despite a directive from HMDA to halt such construction. The petitioner asserts that the opening of the gate provides public access through their residential layout, causing inconvenience and traffic congestion to the residents.

7. It is an admitted fact that the gate was erected on the compound wall of respondent No.6’s premis