JUDGMENT 1. - This public interest litigation has been instituted for alteration of the proposed site of road joining 60 ft. high way road of Nathdwara to Ahmedabad with the NH 8 bye pass. The existing road is alleged to be joining Kalka Mata with village Ragunathpura by a straight road which cuts across 60 ft wide straight road and after passing through fields of village Raghunathpura joins the N.H. 8 bye pass. In the process, it results in making two cross road junctions at the two main roads respectively. 2. As per Ex. P1, the proposed site plan, it appears that the petition relates to part of National High Way No. 8 Bye Pass between Bhuana and Pratap Nagar. Towards South of NH 8 bye pass is situated village Raghunathpura. Beyond village Raghunathpura is a 60' vide straight road. Opp. the village Raghunathpura across the straight Road (60' wide) towards further South is shown the existing university boundary. 3. According to petitioner, from towards Western side of university boundary a road is leading from Kalkamata which moving towards North joins 60' road. Thereafter the route continues through fields of village Raghunathpura to join NH 8 bye pass in a straight line. This makes two crossroads junction in straight line, one between University Campus and village Raghunathpura which road coming from Kalkamata joins 60' wide road, and another at North of village Raghunathpura at 200 feet wide NH 8 bye pass. 4. As per proposed plan towards West of the route passing through village Raghunathpura the office of R.T.O. is being constructed, and the 60' wide road is being joined with NH 8 bye pass from western area of plot on which R.T.O. building is being constructed. This altercation will increase the distance for village carrying from village Kalkamata by about 500 feet to reach the NH 8 bye pass. The plot on which R.T.O. building is constructed is part of village Raghunathpura. 5. Setting up of the transport office and providing a connecting appropriate road by excluding the accident prone junctions was the primary concern of the respondents. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the said alteration in the road direction in any way is adverse to public interest in any manner. 6. 5. Setting up of the transport office and providing a connecting appropriate road by excluding the accident prone junctions was the primary concern of the respondents. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the said alteration in the road direction in any way is adverse to public interest in any manner. 6. Mere inconvenience of some nature by travelling about 500 feet extra cannot be considered adverse to any public interest so as to warrant maintainability of this lis as Public Interest Litigation.The writ petition is dismissed. The notices are discharged.Writ petition dismissed. *******