IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 532 of 2012 Between:
1. Greenlands Ameerpet Madhuranagar Yusufguda Srikrishna Nagar, Joint Action Committee, Regd. Off: 6-3-864/4, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 16, rep. by its Secretary, Sri Rajgopal Bung, R/o. 20-1-469, Old Kabootharkhana, Hyderabad – 064.
2. A.R.Narayanan, S/o. Late A.K.Rama Iyer
3. V.Bhaskar Rao, S/o. V.Malliah
4. Smt. Shahana Ahmed, W/o. Ashfaq Ahmed
5. Jiten Karani, S/o. Zavir Chand Karani
6. Gurmeet Singh, S/o. Ranjeet Singh
7. Aruna B.Ramchandhani, W/o. Bhaghwandas
8. Amit Sirwani, S/o. Ashok Sirwani
9. Kishore Kumar Patel, S/o. A.R.Patel
10. V.Ramanuja Chary, S/o. Late Krishnamurthy
11. M.Srinivas Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao
12. Sheik Maqbul, S/o. Sheik Moulana
13. Gajanand Yadav, S/o. Late Raja Ramji Yadav
14. M.Sudhakar, S/o. Narsing Rao
15. C.V.Sesha Sai, S/o. C.Sri Krishna
16. K.Sayanna, S/o. K.Balaiah
17. G.Sathyanarayana, S/o. G.Anjaiah
18. D.Yellaiah, S/o. late D.Narasaiah
19. R.laxman Raju, S/o. Late Rajappa
20. Vemuri Gopal, S/o. Sithapathi Rao
21. Venu, S/o. G.Koteshwar Rao.
. Petitioners AND
1. The Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited, A State owned Public Enterprise of Government of A.P., Metro Rail Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director.
2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the 1st respondent in changing the alignment of corridor 3 of HMR Project concerning Nagole – Shilparamam as regards the segment of Greenlands – Shilparamam as indicated in the enclosed annexures, as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India by way of issue of a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and issue a consequential direction to the respondent to revert to the original alignment as detailed in the Writ Petition.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein, orders of the High Court dated. 10-02-2012, 16-02-2012 and 22-2-2012 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and of the Advocate General appearing for the Respondents, the Court made the following ORDER:
“Post on 05-03-2012.
Interim order granted earlier is extended by one week.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
1. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad.
2. One CC to Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate(OPUC)
3. One spare copy.
BRT HIGH COURT LNRJ DATED: 1-3-2012 NOTE: POST ON 05-03-2012 ORDER WP.NO. 532 OF 2012 EXTENDED HIGH COURT BRT DRAFTED ON : 2-3-2012 LNRJ DATED: 1-3-2012 NOTE: POST ON 05-03-2012 ORDER WP.NO. 532 OF 2012 EXTENDED