Telangana High Court
Kolla Rahul Sankrityayan vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITIONS No. 15952 AND 33346 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No. 15952 of 2022:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ directing the respondents herein:
(I) Not to make or allow making any construction in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District including construction of the Flyover reducing or likely to reduce the road width of the Access road to Movie Towers to less than 30 meters during and also after such construction.
(II) To remove all such constructions to the extent already made including construction of the flyover reducing or likely to reduce the road width of the access road to movie towers to less than 30 meters during and also after such construction.
(III) To forthwith furnish the entire information sought by the petitioner under application dated 27.12.2021 under Section 16(1) of the RTI Act after declaring the impugned action of the respondents as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rule 2006 and the Right to Information Act and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances to secure the ends of justice.
2. Petitioner is a resident of MOVIE Towers Residential Complex. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents undertook a prestigious NEOPOLIS project for development of IT & ITES SEZs. by providing suitable infrastructure facilities in 2 Acs.119.00 land in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village. In the said layout, a proposed road is shown on the North of MOVIE Towers and a proposed flyover is shown on the Eastern side of MOVIE Towers using the existing access road space of MOVIE Towers. It is stated that the purported road shown in the said layout plan on the North side of MOVIE Towers is absent in the HMDA Master Plan, 2031. It is stated that under Rule 9.6 of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006, the minimum abutting road width for high-rise building / complex of above 50 meters height is 30 meters and all round open space is 16 meters. The height of the MOVIE towers is 59.60 meters consisting of total 320 flats and all round open space is 17.17 meters on three sides and 17.20 meters in the West. As part of the project, the respondents are undertaking construction of flyover using most part of the existing 36 meters wide access road area on the Eastern side of MOVIE Towers thereby shrinking the required width of the access road to MOVIE towers. Consequently, the required width of access road under the Regulations will not be available to the existing MOVIE Towers thereby violating the Regulations. The access of the road towards Gandipet - Shankarpally road is also cut. No notice or any action whatsoever is initiated till date to acquire 3 the private land on the Northern side of MOVIE Towers to lay any road till date. Further, the entire area is full of dust and other pollution due to blastings, crushers and ongoing massive levelling works of removing the rocky hills.
On 27.12.2021, the petitioner gave a representation to the 3rd respondent asking them the following information:
i. Occupancy Certificate dated 08.07.2019 building permit proceedings No. 1572 / P4 / PLG / HMDA / 2009 pertaining to MOVIE Towers.
ii. What is the required approach road width under Regulations for said ground + 19 upper floors MOVIE Towers building height 59.6 meters.
iii. Copy of proposed layout plan in Sy.Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, RR District.
iv. Copies of proposed layout plan and working drawings of the flyover proposed to be constructed connecting directly to ORR in front of MOVIE Towers.
v. Copies of proposed access to MOVIE Towers as per the layout plan with working drawings.
vi. Proposed plan to secure uninterrupted access to 30 meters wide road for MOVIE Towers during the time of and after construction of flyover.
vii. Measures planned and monitored to safeguard the life and liberty of residents and the Movie Towers building from hazards of construction activity in the proposed layout including dust pollution and blastings.
viii. Are the pollution levels and bastings intensity levels being recorded continuously in Sy.Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet to monitor safety guidelines, if any. If so please provide last two months November and December, 2021 information.
ix. Why is the entire area full of dust and other pollution and from when will the pollution in the area cease.4
x. Details of the authority who is responsible for designing, planning and executing the construction of flyover and altering the approach road to MOVIE Towers.
xi. Details of the Authority who is vested with the responsibility of owning and maintaining the existing approach road to MOVIE Towers.
When there was no response from the 3rd respondent within 30 days as stipulated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the petitioner made a further representation dated 11.02.2022 to all the respondents herein demanding to provide the said information within five days of receipt of the same. In spite of the same, the respondents did not furnish the information. On the contrary, they gave all irrelevant and irresponsible reply dated 16.02.2022 that as file No. 1572/P4/PLG/HMDA/2009 pertaining to the Occupancy Certificate granted to MOVIE Towers could not be traced out by him in the record room since it is a very old file, efforts are being made to trace out the file and that information will be furnished soon after the file is traced. It is stated that till date, no further information is given to him. It is further stated that the respondents without furnishing any information are going ahead in a very fast-phase with the construction which constrained him to approach this Court.5
WRIT PETITION No. 33346 Of 2022:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein:
(IV) Not to make or allow making any construction in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District including construction of the expressway extension of the Outer Ring Road reducing or likely to reduce the road width of the access road to Movie Towers to less than 30 meters during and also after such construction.
(V) To remove all such constructions to the extent already made including construction of the expressway extension of Outer Ring Road reducing or likely to reduce the road width of the access road to movie towers to less than 30 meters during and also after such construction. (VI) To forthwith furnish the entire road connecting the service road of the Outer Ring Road and the Gandipet-Shankarpally road which is the only access road for Movie Tower. After declaring the impugned action of the respondents as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 Hyderabad Building Rules 2012 and Section 15 of the HMDA Act 2008 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances to secure the ends of justice.
3. All the petitioners are residents of MOVIE Towers. It is stated that there are 320 flats and about 1500 persons residing in the towers and around 600 vehicles, about 50 house-keeping staff, security staff regularly use the said 36 metres abutting the road to access into MOVIE Towers. It is stated that 36 meters wide road on the Eastern side of MOVIE 6 Towers which is the only access road for all the residents for ingress and egress and to connect the ORR service road as well as Gandipet-Shankerpally Road was increased to 45 meters by revising the master plan in exercise of the power under Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008. It is stated that the respondents have not acquired any land till date for increasing the said road to 45 meters. It is also stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2020, the applicant therein i.e. HMDA shall comply with the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 i.e. Hyderabad Building Rules, 2012. As per the said Rules, the minimum abutting road width for high rise building / complex of above 50 meters height is 30 meters and all-round open space is 16 meters. The whole purpose of prescribing minimum required width of abutting road for a building under the Rules is to ensure sufficient access and free flow of traffic for the residents of the building and also the other commuters of the abutting road. It is stated that the respondents without following the procedure under Section 15 of the HMDA Act for making any alteration to the Master plan, undertook construction of an express way extension to the ORR comprising of a trumpet for landing and exit from ORR with a flyover and a ramp as part of the NEOPOLIS project for development of IT & 7 ITES SEZs, by providing suitable infrastructure facilities in Acs.119.00 of land in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village. The respondents are proposing to erect eight toll gates being three for entry and five for exit on the ramp portion of the proposed extension to the ORR. The purported extension of ORR and the purported road shown in the said layout plan planned on the North side of MOVIE Towers to provide access road to the petitioners is absent in the HMDA Master Plan, 2031. The respondents have abandoned the proposal of providing an alternate access road on the Northern side and connection to service road though it ought not to have continued with their plan to extent the ORR by using the only available required access road of 30 meters width on the Eastern side. By considering all this, the requisite width of the road on the eastern side is reduced. They are proposing to reduce the abutting access road width for MOVIE Towers to 9 meters out of which also only 7 meters full carriageway and 2 meters earthen shoulder is proposed. Such a narrow two-line road, apart from being contrary to the building rules is highly insufficient and vehicles like school buses, transport vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, etcetera cannot even turn around. 8
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. It is stated that they have admitted the fact that ORR Service Road to MOVIE Tower to Gandipet-Shankarpally Road was increased to 45 metres, vide G.O.Ms.No. 24, MA & HD Department, dated 04.02.2020 by the government by revising the master plan in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008. The HMDA has acquired land for increasing the road width to 45 mtrs. and has taken over the possession of the area proposed for widening and connectivity to ORR. In case of road widening in any area, it is a general practice to take the required land from the adjoining properties equally from both sides out of the available setbacks and also from the existing buildings, if any and duly giving them either the compensation or the TDR certificates. In the light of a greater public good, the road widening is proposed due to the developments and traffic projections in the area catering to the existing roads. It is further stated that in the present case of road widening from 36 meters to 45 meters on the east side of MOVIE Towers, utmost care has been taken not to disturb the setbacks / compound wall or property area of the MOVIE Towers by proposing the road widening of extra 9 meters to the 9 opposite side of the MOVIE Towers Road from the private property by making the right of way as 45 meters. The slip road connecting to the service road with access to the Movie Towers is provided with three lane carriage way (10 meters) with 1 mtr. footpath for the traffic flow as against the existing two lane carriage way ie. 36 meters ROW. The flyover is proposed all along the centre of this road which is a general practice for construction of any flyover. It is stated that it is only the apprehension of the petitioner and that this action of the respondents is not in violation of the zoning regulations. It is stated that total ROW of 45 meters is proposed against the existing 36 meters wide road with proper traffic management plan for smooth and seamless flow of traffic and has been planned to avoid conflict connectivity to ORR duly taking into consideration the traffic in the entire Kokapet and adjoining areas. Therefore, the proposals are made at the connecting point with proper ingress and egress of increased width of carriage way in front of MOVIE Towers i.e. the existing two lane is proposed to three lane carriage way of 10 meters which is sufficient for vehicles like school buses, transport vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, etcetera. It is denied that the width of the access of MOVIE towers is narrowed down and is being reduced 10 is not correct. It is stated that the flyover is being constructed for the benefit of general public going to be resided in the NEOPOLIS layout and also in the adjoining areas of Kokapet. Approximately, about 10 lakhs residents are going to be resided in NEOPOLIS layout in next 10-15 years. The residents of MOVIE Towers are approaching with a self motive thereby serving their own interest and stalling the interest of the larger public. It is stated that pillars have been constructed on service roads of ORR only and the same do not violate any regulations as the land owner is HMDA only. The respondents are not constructing anything in front of the MOVIE Towers.
5. A reply has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 33346 of 2022 stating that the road abutting Movie Towers is part of NEOPOLIS which is a newly-planned area under development. There is completely vacant government land available on the other side of the road abutting Movie Towers. Since NEOPOLIS is a new development, it is incumbent upon HMDA to utilise the available open land to create proper road infrastructure and at the same time, not to violate its own zoning regulations for building above 50 meters in height. That opposite to Movie Towers, the land in Plot No.1 is unsold government land earmarked for future SEZ. The MOVIE Towers 11 had a pre-existing 36 Meters access road which will be widened to 45 Meters as per G.O.Ms.No. 24. Hence, it will be divided into two roads one access road called slip road of 11 meters width to MOVIE towers and another of 34 meters width called Trumpet Interchange to access ORR. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No. 24 is only for widening the existing access road to MOVIE Towers from 36 to 45 meters. The proposal of HMDA to land Trumpet Interchange on the said 45 Meters access road reduces the abutting road to 10 Meters thereby violating G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012. The fact that the road connecting the ORR service road to Gandipet-Shankarpally State Highway which is the only access road for MOVIE Towers will thus be narrowed from 45 Meters width to 11 Meters which will create a major traffic bottleneck for a distance of a little more than half a kilometre for the ingress/egress of the residents of MOVIE Towers as well as for the commuters from NEOPOLIS.
6. A reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2022 stating that as per the counter- affidavit, an alternative approach road was proposed on the northern side of the MOVIE Towers along the boundary of Kokapet Village and that on account of number of objections the said proposal was dropped. It is clear that original 36 meters 12 wide Master Plan Road is the only approach road to MOVIE Towers on the eastern side which connects to the service road of Outer Ring Road. It is further stated that as per the counter- affidavit, 36 meters Master Plan Road is on the east of MOVIE Towers and it is changed to 45 meters. The entire flyover is proposed along this road. Further, the respondents having dropped the said 36 meters road on north side of Movie Towers ought not to have continued with the construction of the subject flyover utilising the road width of the only existing access road without providing alternate access road of sufficient width to MOVIE Towers. It is stated that MOVIE Towers was granted building permission for a multi-storied building having height of 59.60 Meters. It is stated that as per the Rules, the buildings with height of above 50 Meters should have approach road having a minimum width of 30 meters. It is stated that while granting building permission to the sites which are abutting this 45 Meters wide road, the entire road width of 45 Meters would be taken into consideration for all practical purposes and that even after construction of flyover on this 45 Meters wide road, a clear 9 Meters road with a full carriage way for two lane would be left towards MOVIE Towers side as such access to the premises will not get affected. In such a case, the very purpose 13 for prescribing minimum abutting road width to secure sufficient road access will be defeated. It is also stated that very widening of original Master Plan road from 36 to 45 Meters without following the procedure under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act is illegal and the same cannot be given effect to. The subject Trumpet Interchange and the flyover is being constructed illegally as per the modified master plan and as such all or any works done carrying out changes made to the original master plan without following the due procedure under Section 15 of the HMDA Act are liable to be removed restoring the original master plan road. It is stated that the respondents have not furnished full and correct information sought by him under the Right to Information Act. It is falsely stated in the counter-affidavit that clear 9 Meters width full carriage way is provided contrary to the furnished drawings which reflect that only 7 Meters carriage way is proposed. It is stated that the respondents cannot construct the subject flyover before the MOVIE Towers.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy representing the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the building rules, if the height of the building is above 50 Meters, it has to be a 30 Meters approach 14 road and as the Movie Towers is 59.60 Meters consisting of total 320 flats and all round open space is 17.17 Meters on three sides and 17.20 Meters in the west. Because of the construction of flyover and the Trumpet exactly opposite to the MOVIE Towers the required length of the road to MOVIE Towers will be reduced. He submits that whenever a high-rise building is constructed for giving permission, they are always insisting for certain specifications of an approach road with a view to provide free passage of vehicles and not to create any kind of disturbance. It is submitted that petitioner's apartment consists of 320 flats and every family is having minimum four cars, if these many cars come on to the road and if sufficient road is not available, it would cause lot of hardship not only to the inmates of the apartment but also to the passersby. It is further submitted that this action of the respondents in constructing a flyover and Trumpet opposite to the petitioner's apartment is in clear violation of the Building Rules. He submits that when they are insisting for open road, for an approach road, for a particular height of a building, the same as well applies to them and in this case, they have failed to follow their own rules and are causing inconvenience to the inmates of the MOVIE Towers. 15 It is submitted that if they go ahead with the construction, it makes the lives of the inmates of the apartment miserable.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ajay Reddy representing the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA Y. Rama Rao submits that they have followed all the established procedures and there is no procedural violation as averred by the petitioner. He submits that they have increased the width of ORR Service Road at MOVIE Towers to Gandipet - Shankarpally Road to 45 Meters vide G.O.Ms.No. 24, MA & UD Department, dated 04.02.2020 by revising the Master Plan in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008. It is submitted that the HMDA had acquired the land and taken possession of the same by following due process of law. He submits that for widening of road from 36 to 45 meters on the eastern side of the Movie Towers they have taken utmost care not to disturb the setbacks / compound wall or property area of the Movie Towers by proposing the road widening of extra 9 meters to the opposite side of the MOVIE Towers Road from the private property by making the right of way as 45 Meters. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that at the junction of ORR connectivity, the Trumpet Interchange is proposed with a six lane with central meridian without conflict to the traffic flow on to the ORR going 16 towards Patancheru, Shamshabad and Gachibowli sides with slip roads of sufficient width connecting to the service roads. It is submitted that the slip road connecting to the service road with access to the MOVIE Towers is provided with three-lane carriage way (10 meters) with 1 meter footpath for the traffic flow as against the existing two-lane carriage way presently 36 Meters ROW. The flyover is proposed all along the centre of the road which is a general practice for construction of any flyover. It is submitted that while considering any Application for building permission which are abutting to this 45 Meters wide road, the entire road width of 45 Meters will be taken into consideration for all practical purposes and building permissions will be issued accordingly. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is only the apprehension of the petitioner that construction of flyover will result into violation of zoning regulation regarding road width. It is submitted that even after construction of flyover, total 36 feet road will be left towards MOVIE Towers side as such access to their premises will not get affected. It is further submitted that the whole endeavour of the respondents in constructing the flyover on the Trumpet lane is for smooth traffic flow taking into consideration the future growth of NEOPOLIS Layout. The present proposal of widening 17 of existing 36 Meters to 45 Meters road with Trumpet Interchange, slip roads, service roads fitting within the 45 Meters row are taken up taking into consideration the NEOPOLIS Layout and the development along the road and in the adjoining areas as proper road network is required to achieve a long term solution. Learned Senior counsel submits that taking into consideration the manner and the pace in which the city is developing, they have proposed road widening of existing service road from two-lane to four-lane. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners cannot stall the development which is taken up at the interest of the larger public.
The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:
Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. State of
Andhra Pradesh1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraphs 30 and 31 observed thus:
" We have taken pains to set out the fact situation in
some detail since a decision in this matter depends on the fact situation leading to the change of alignment of the Western Sector of the Outer Ring Road Project in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. From the site plans of the area submitted by the parties, it is clear that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of 1 (2010) 5 SCC 590 18 alignment in the first place. From the reports submitted by the various local authorities, it is, however, clear that in order to proceed according to the first alignment, the respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which is not so as far as the second alignment is concerned. It is no doubt true that in terms of the environmental policies of the State Government, the Western Sector of the project has been shown to be a highly ecologically sensitive zone, but we have no choice but to consider the viability of either of the two alignments for the purpose of the connectivity of the Outer Ring Road and while doing so we have to balance the aforesaid factor and also the interest of the private land owners as against the interest of the public; apart from the above, we have also to take into consideration the facts that the major stretch of the Outer Ringer Road is said to have been completed, even in the Western Sector and only a small stretch involving the plots of the appellant, is yet to be completed.
There is no doubt that in the facts of this case the public interest will out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as plot No. 300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23rd December 2006. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, we are of the view that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ringer Road have to give way to the construction of the said road. However, while constructing the portion of the road affecting the plots in question, maximum care has to be taken by the concerned authorities to preserve as far as possible the water bodies over which the road is to be constructed."
In B.P. Mahesh v. State of Karnataka2, the High Court of Karnataka held thus:
" 10. In the backdrop of the rival contentions urged, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is:2
2018 SCC Online Kar 39 19 " Whether the prayer contained in I.A.No. 4/2017 to stop further construction of the flyover merits consideration?"
11. This Writ Petition is presented invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main relief sought for by the petitioners is to quash the Government Order dated 24.06.2017, according approval for construction of the 'Steel flyover'. The principal ground urged in support of the petition is that, the flyover design is not in conformity with the guidelines prescribed in the IRC manual.
22. Thus, we are of the considered view that the principal ground urged with regard to 'IRC specifications' is untenable. The construction of the flyover falls within the scope and ambit of infrastructure development and it is a policy matter. Every day's delay in construction would not only affect the commuters adversely but also speaks clearly on the exchequer with the increase in cost of construction.
23. In the facts and circumstances, any order interjecting the progress in construction of the flyover would defeat public interest. Therefore, the balance should tilt in favour of construction of flyover."
In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 4 thus:
" 4. Even assuming that the construction placed by the High Court and vehemently defended by the learned counsel for respondent is correct should the High Court have interfered with the order of Government in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The distinction between writs issued as a matter of right such as habeas corpus and those issued in exercise of discretion such as certiorari and mandamus are well known and explained in countless decisions given by this Court and English Courts. It is not necessary to recount them. The High Courts exercise control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and law by enforcing proper, fair and just performance of duty. Where the Government or any authority passes an 3 (1994) 2 SCC 481 20 order which is contrary to rules or law, it becomes amenable to correction by the Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of justice. One of the yardsticks for it is if the quashing of the order results in greater harm to the society then the court may restrain from exercising the power."
In National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited4, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 48 held as under:
"48. Even while entertaining the writ petitions and / or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and / or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and / or arbitrary and / or suffers from mala fides and / or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petitions and / or passing any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him / it, he / they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him /it. With these words of caution and advice we rest the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the court(s) concerned, which ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the national interest involved."4
(2022) 6 SCC 401 21 In Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries5, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 held as follows:
"8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non- arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent."
In Sethi Auto Services Station v. Delhi
Development Authority6, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraphs 32 and 33 held as under:
" 32. An examination of the aforenoted few decisions shows that the golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence, arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation which it would be 5 (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71 6 (2009) 1 SCC 180 22 within its powers to fulfill unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. However, a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, has to satisfy that he has relied on the said representation and the denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The Court could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken in public interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles.
33. It is well-settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bonds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited."
Learned Senior Counsel summing up his arguments, submits that the petitioners could not make out any legal grounds and they have come before this Court more on apprehensions than on legally-tenable grounds.
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record.
23
10. In Writ Petition No. 33346 of 2022, the petitioner sought for a mandamus directing the respondents not to make any construction in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village including construction of express way, extension of ORR which is likely to reduce the width of the access road to MOVIE Towers and to remove such constructions which are already made including construction of express way.
11. Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2022 is also filed with the similar relief. The bone of contention of both the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsel is that when they are prescribing particular parameters by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 24, the respondents have to follow their own rules. If the flyover is constructed just opposite to their apartment, it will affect their ingress and egress which will create congestion and traffic problems. It is also their case that width of the road is extended from 35 to 45 meters by amending the master plan without following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act.
12. It is the contention of the respondents that even while constructing the flyover they are still maintaining 36 meters wide road, it is only the apprehension of the petitioners. They have brought to the notice of the Court the G.O., whereby the master plan was amended extending the road width from 30 24 to 45 meters. On the first count, the petitioner cannot question the amendment of the master plan by the respondents in this Writ Petition for the reason the said G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated 04.02.2020 issued by the respondents by amending the Master Plan is not in question before this Court. Hence, the petitioners cannot agitate the said issue and this Court cannot go into the said aspect. The Courts as well as the people cannot lose sight of the fact that the city is developing multi-fold in a fast pace. The government has the responsibility to act in tune with the growing requirements and take steps to provide the road and other facilities to the inhabitants of the city. In that process, looking at the larger interest, the respondents have taken a decision to construct a flyover. The petitioners have to demonstrate before this Court that their constitutional rights are affected or there is violation of any statutory rules. Further, this Court can interfere on the grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. When no such grounds are raised this Court cannot interfere with the construction of flyover which is in the larger public interest. Learned Senior Counsel for HMDA has brought to the notice of this Court G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 and also going through the contents of the counter affidavit wherein it is categorically 25 mentioned that by constructing a flyover or trumpet interchange before the petitioner's towers, width of the road is not condensed. Even assuming for argument sake that the width of the road before the petitioners' apartment is reduced, still the Court will not interfere as it is settled law that in case of a conflict between public interest and individual interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest. Hence, in any view of the matter, no grounds much less legal grounds are made out seeking interference of the Court.
13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
14. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 20th June 2023 ksld