M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned Single Judge declining to exercise the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the notice issued by the Deputy executive Engineer, Randb Department, bhimavaram, for removing the encroachments made on the road, which is causing traffic hazard. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing, this Court in order to satisfy itself whether the construction of the appellants is on the road or on the road berms, and whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land in dispute and report to this Court ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate Commissioner for the reasons best known on point No. 2 whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not observed that when he inspected the land in question he did not find any movement of heavy traffic, and therefore, he is unable to report whether there is any hazard to the free flow of traffic. The Advocate Commissioner, however, placed on record certain photographs of the spot taken in the month of May, 2000 which are not disputed by the learned Counsel. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has not supplied the copies of the photographs. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision of law the advocate Commissioner has to supply him the photographs. The Advocate commissioner has filed the photographs in the Court, which have become the documents of the Court, and the learned counsel for the petitioner was always at liberty to inspect them. ( 5 ) BE that as it is, if we look at the photographs, it appears that there is hazard to the free flow of traffic. Merely because the notice to remove the encroachments is issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, randb and not the Municipal Corporation, it cannot be said that the impugned notice is unsustainable on technical grounds. ( 5 ) BE that as it is, if we look at the photographs, it appears that there is hazard to the free flow of traffic. Merely because the notice to remove the encroachments is issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, randb and not the Municipal Corporation, it cannot be said that the impugned notice is unsustainable on technical grounds. The petitioners, rather if we may hasten to add, under the garb of invoking writ jurisdiction, which is equitable, after admitting that they are encroachers of the road berms, is challenging the removal of the encroachments on technical grounds that the Deputy Executive Engineer, Randb cannot discharge the functions of the other department of the State and remove the encroachments. The administration of the state has the power to remove the encroachments at any point of time from any place if the encroachments are causing obstruction to the easy flow of traffic. The discretion exercised by the learned Single judge being judicial, does not call for interference in appeal for there is no error pointed out, much less unconscionable. ( 6 ) THE writ jurisdiction being equitable, anybody seeking its invocation should come with clean hands, and in the instant case, since the petitioner has approached this Court with total unclean hands, he cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction. ( 7 ) AT this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the encroachments are on the road berms, and there is no obstruction to the free flow of traffic. We fail to comprehend what is meant by road berm if even one foot of land is not left for the people to move freely, leave alone the free flow of traffic. ( 8 ) FOR the above-mentioned reasons, we dismiss the writ appeal with costs of rs. 6,000/- for the petitioners having encroached upon the State property not only continued to do their business from that place without paying any rent either to the State or to anybody else, but also caused inconvenience to the free flow of traffic.