THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 813 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the appellant;
Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration and Urban Development representing
respondent No.1; and Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel
for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) representing respondents No.2 to 6.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.17017 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition praying for the following relief:
"to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in intending to lay drainage line (Box Drain) through the Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Lingojiguda, LB Nagar Zone, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct ::2::
the respondents not to lay any drainage line through the Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Lingojiguda, L.B. Nagar Zone, since there is another alternative, safe and less expensive way of dealing with rain water"
4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that GHMC is proposing to lay drainage pipeline through Srinivasa Nagar Colony instead of Padma Nagar Colony as a result, there is every possibility of back flow of drain water inundating Srinivasa Nagar Colony in future. Various aspects were not taken into consideration while preparing the plan. In this connection, appellant had submitted representation dated 28.03.2022 to respondent No.2 to reconsider the proposed drainage line through Srinivasa Nagar Colony. As no decision was taken, the related writ petition came to be filed.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that to address the grievance of the appellant and to alley all kinds of apprehension, Strategic Nala Development Program (SNDP) has been established with a dedicated project wing to deal with storm water drainage/nala system in Hyderabad. In this connection, a new drain is being constructed from Chandana Gardens to Saroornagar Lake and from Vanga Shankaramma Garden to Saroornagar Lake ::3::
with an estimate of Rs.28.10 crores. The survey was conducted by the consultant engaged by the GHMC whereafter, the consultant submitted feasibility report. It was thereafter that execution of the work has been undertaken. Already sufficient public funds have been spent in execution of the program.
6. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 15.11.2022 dismissed the writ petition by holding as follows:
Before taking up this project, the respondents have conducted a thorough survey with the NCPE consultancy and thereafter, taking into consideration all these facts, they have started the work and the petitioner cannot have any grievance. The petitioner or the petitioner's Association are not technical experts to know how the said system has to work. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. In the hearing today, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submits on the basis of written instructions that SNDP has carried out detailed study of the existing nala system/water drainage system and has identified critical narrow points, encroachments of nalas etc., ::4::
and thereafter submitted detailed report to take up the work on a mission mode. He submits that apprehension of the appellant is misplaced inasmuch as the proposed drainage line in Srinivasa Nagar Colony would not lead to flow of backwater from the Saroornagar lake as Srinivasa Nagar Colony is 300 meters away from the lake and the lake water would not rise to the level of Srinivasa Nagar Colony, which is at a higher plane, to inundate the said colony. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, it is difficult for a writ court to examine such issues where technical expertise is concerned.
8. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal.
9. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 12.12.2022 LUR