JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing plot No.22, D.No.8-2-351/1/22, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of foot over bridge, opposite to his house, adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner. According to petitioner, he had a plot of a size of 730 square yards; earlier Government took over 170 square yards of his property for widening of the road and as a result, he is left with 560 square yards of plot; this plot has access to main road as well as 40 feet byline road; has road facing frontage of 24 feet, whereas the proposed construction of foot over bridge adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner blocks access to the main road. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for GHMC for respondents 2 to 4, Sri V.V. Anil Kumar and Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsels for the private respondents respectively. 3.1. Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar would submit that any property owner has a right of access to the main road to the entire extent of the property and the right of frontage. This right is sought to be affected on account of decision of the respondents to construct a foot over bridge on Road No.3 of Banjara Hills in front of property of the petitioner. No such right can be taken away without following due process. The decision to construct a foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner occupying 18 meters of frontage space on the road facing of the property thereby curtailing the access to the property only to an extent of 6 meters could not have been made without putting the petitioner on notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without compensating for the loss caused to the petitioner. Road No.3 is a busy area and there are several commercial properties and there is huge demand for commercial space. However, the property will have greater value if it is having wider frontage to main road. On account of construction of foot over bridge, the value of the property would diminish. Road No.3 is a busy area and there are several commercial properties and there is huge demand for commercial space. However, the property will have greater value if it is having wider frontage to main road. On account of construction of foot over bridge, the value of the property would diminish. He would therefore submit that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner has adverse civil and evil consequences and whenever a decision of the authority results in evil and civil consequences, it is mandatory to follow due process of law before affecting such right. On this ground alone the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal. 3.2. He would further submit that no proper exercise was undertaken before identifying the location. There are several other points available on this stretch where the foot over bridge could have been located without affecting the private properties like that of the petitioner. Having come to know that the respondent corporation was proposing to establish foot over bridge on this road, petitioner volunteered to suggest various alternative points which has least inconvenience to the property owners and would be equally useful for the people to cross the road. According to him, nearer to the property of the petitioner, there is a Government land and the foot over bridge could have been located at that place. Thus, without conducting scientific study, and without regard to causing loss to the private property owner, foot over bridge in front of property of petitioner is contemplated and on this ground also the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal. 3.3. Petitioner being the property owner and resident of the area, it is mandatory that he ought to have been consulted and his consent ought to have been obtained before erecting the foot over bridge and without his consent, foot over bridge cannot be located adjacent to the property of the petitioner effecting the right of ingress and egress as well as right of frontage. 3.4. 3.4. While broadly accepting the fact that foot over bridge on this stretch is necessary to enable crossing over the road and it is in larger public interest, he would endeavour to submit that it is necessary for the respondent corporation to balance the larger public interest keeping in mind the rights of the individual property owners and this could have been achieved if there was a prior consultation and obtaining of the consent and examining the feasibility of locating the foot over bridge at an alternative place as suggested by the petitioner. 3.5. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Baldev Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 510 ]; (ii) Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam, Madhavaram and Another v. Roja Sundaram and others [AIR 1987 Madras 183]; (iii) K.V.K. Janardhanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [AIR 1995 Madras 179]; (iv) Mst. Bhagwanti vs. Mst. Jiuti and another [AIR 1975 Allahabad 341]; (v) Dwarka Prasad Singh and Ors vs. Patna City Municipality and another [AIR 1938 Patna 423]; (vi) District Board of Manbhum vs. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. and Anr. [AIR 1945 Patna 200] (vii) Godavari Bhai vs. Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore ( AIR 1985 Ker 2 ); (viii) Patna City Municipality vs. Dwaraka Prasad Singh and Ors. (AIR 1939 Pat 683) 4.1. Sri P. Kesava Rao, submits that this particular stretch of the road is a busy road having heavy traffic flow. It has a divided carriageway. On account of heavy traffic flow with divided carriageway, lot of inconvenience is caused to the pedestrians to cross over the road. Muffakham Jah College and other educational institutions are located on this stretch of the road and thousands of students come to the premises every day. Most of the students cross the road to reach the college and to go to their destinations. The frequent movement of students is also causing traffic obstruction. Furthermore, on this road vehicles move at high speed and there are several accidents involving pedestrians. Recently a girl child and her grand father died while crossing the road. This resulted in the students of Muffakham Jah College and other institutions restoring to strike and blocking of road demanding construction of foot over bridge. Furthermore, on this road vehicles move at high speed and there are several accidents involving pedestrians. Recently a girl child and her grand father died while crossing the road. This resulted in the students of Muffakham Jah College and other institutions restoring to strike and blocking of road demanding construction of foot over bridge. Having regard to the demand made by the students and having found that the said demand is genuine, the Corporation has taken steps to construct the foot over bridge immediately. 4.2. After a detailed study and after examining the various points to locate the foot over bridge and in consultation with the stakeholders, the present place is identified as best possible place to construct foot over bridge. Learned standing counsel would justify the action of the respondent corporation. 4.3. He would further submit that this foot over bridge is being constructed on a public road. The foot over bridge is being erected in the larger public interest more particularly in the interest of students attending to colleges and schools in the area. The property of the petitioner is not affected. There is no encroachment into his property. Petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim complete frontage of the road for the entire stretch of the property. Even otherwise, in the larger public interest, individual right can be curtailed. 5. Sri Anil Kumar submit that after the corporation took decision to construct foot over bridge, bids were called and M/s. Prakash Arts Private Limited has become successful bidder and entered into agreement for construction of the foot over bridge with elevators and has commenced work for construction of the foot over bridge. The contractor has already spent huge amount and on account of stay granted by the Court, grave prejudice is caused to him. 6. On behalf of the students of Muffakam Jah Engineering College, it is contended that lot of inconvenience is caused to the students in crossing over the road to reach to the college and to reach to the Bus shelter. On account of heavy traffic, the students are consistently facing problem while crossing the road. They are under constant fear of accident while crossing the road. The students are upset when a girl child and her grand father died near the college. The students resorted to agitation demanding to construct the foot over bridge. On account of heavy traffic, the students are consistently facing problem while crossing the road. They are under constant fear of accident while crossing the road. The students are upset when a girl child and her grand father died near the college. The students resorted to agitation demanding to construct the foot over bridge. On account of delay in construction of foot over bridge, grave prejudice is caused to the students. 7. The facts which are not in dispute are in a narrow compass. Road No.3 of Banjara Hills is a very busy road having heavy traffic flow with vehicles moving at high speed. On this road, prestigious institutions are established by the Sulthan-Ul-Uloom Education society. Thousands of students come to various institutions located on this road from across the city and most of the students come in buses run by RTC; the students have to cross over the road to reach college and cross over the road to reach the Bus stop. Having realized that there is an imminent necessity to construct a foot over bridge, Corporation seems to have undertaken study to identify the location and having considered various aspects, found the place in front of the property of the petitioner as most suitable. The proposed construction of foot over bridge is not affecting any private property and is to come up on the public road. Since no private property is affected the question of invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or taking the consent of the property owners would not arise. 8. The only grievance of the petitioner is on account of construction of this foot over bridge, almost 3/4’s of frontage of his property facing the main road is affected, thereby affecting the valuable right of the petitioner in owning the property and in enjoying the fruits from the property. It appears that petitioner had applied for grant of building permission to construct a commercial building in this location and the application is pending consideration of the respondent corporation. 9. It appears that a detailed study was conducted by the authorities; a copy of such study is enclosed to the counter affidavit. It would disclose that majority of the road accidents involve pedestrians while they cross the road. 9. It appears that a detailed study was conducted by the authorities; a copy of such study is enclosed to the counter affidavit. It would disclose that majority of the road accidents involve pedestrians while they cross the road. One of the important steps required to be taken to ensure that no such accidents occur to the pedestrians, is to construct foot over bridges at various locations, more particularly where the vehicular flow is very high and it is difficult for people to cross the roads. The report enclosed to the counter affidavit would disclose that the GHMC along with its Project Consultant undertook detailed exercise to identify the locations to construct foot over bridges in the city. They have taken into consideration various aspects, such as, availability of landing space, major pedestrian crossing area, contours of the road, nature of carriageway etc., and prioritized 50 locations based on the immediate requirement. It is not in dispute, as noticed above, this road stretch is very wide with a divided carriageway and the flow of traffic is high. Thus, a foot over bridge is necessary on this stretch of the road in the larger public interest. This FOB is assigned top priority, apparently on account of the demand made by the students of institutions run by Sulthan-Ul-Uloom Education Society. 10. Admittedly, so far no permission is granted for construction of building. It is not a case where permission was granted and the corporation has allowed the petitioner to open entire stretch of his property to the main road and the plan approved by the corporation inherently disclose that such opening is necessary. As of now, this property is having entry through the side road. The construction of foot over bridge is on public road and no part of petitioner property is utilized. 11. In the above factual background, it is necessary to consider the grievance of petitioner vis-à-vis the scope of power of judicial review in matters of this nature. 12.1. By long line of precedents, the scope of judicial review against administrative decisions is well settled. Court can undertake judicial review of an executive decision on grounds of ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’, and ‘procedural impropriety’. The writ Court is required to consider whether the decision making process satisfies the test of reasonableness, fairness, non-arbitrariness and whether authority lacks competence. 12.1. By long line of precedents, the scope of judicial review against administrative decisions is well settled. Court can undertake judicial review of an executive decision on grounds of ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’, and ‘procedural impropriety’. The writ Court is required to consider whether the decision making process satisfies the test of reasonableness, fairness, non-arbitrariness and whether authority lacks competence. The Court is required to test whether a decision is preceded by detailed exercise and whether such decision was taken in arbitrary manner, with mala fide intention to scuttle the right of the individual. A decision of the competent authority, if it impacts the private citizens in any manner, has to be preceded by detailed exercise, consideration of all relevant issues and arriving at a decision after elaborate examination of pros and cons. 12.2. In Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. [ (1997) 1 SCC 738 ], while referring to guidelines laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ], Supreme Court held as under: “9. ……. The High Court in construing certain clauses of the bid documents has come to the conclusion that such a correction was permissible and, therefore, the Bank could not have insisted upon granting the contract in favour of the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it was not within the permissible limits of interference for a court of law, particularly when there has been no allegation of malice or ulterior motive and particularly when the court has not found any mala fides or favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of the appellant. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] this Court has held that: “The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, 2. committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it; (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time.” (emphasis supplied) 12.3. On the scope of judicial review on the decisions of executive, more particularly decisions involving technical matters, in Union of India v. J.O., Suryavamshi [ (2011) 13 SCC 167 ], Supreme Court warned the Courts to resist the temptation to usurp the power of executive. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, Courts should keep off the same [paragraph 18, Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India [ (2003) 4 SCC 289 ]]. Legality of policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [paragraph 16, Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gauraw Ashwin Jain [ (2007) 4 SCC 737 ]]. 12.4. It is also settled principle of law that even assuming that there are two possibilities and the competent authority has chosen one option, the Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot hold such decision as invalid and suggest to take alternative decision/in the instant case, location. It is for the competent authority to choose a particular place to construct foot over bridge having regard to the technical feasibility and other relevant parameters. Court cannot hold location of foot over bridge at this place as not valid merely because it feels that another location would have been more suitable. The wisdom and admissibility of decision is not amenable to judicial review unless the same is declared as arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. Court cannot hold location of foot over bridge at this place as not valid merely because it feels that another location would have been more suitable. The wisdom and admissibility of decision is not amenable to judicial review unless the same is declared as arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India [ (2006) 10 SCC 1 ], Supreme Court elaborated on these three parameters. Supreme Court observed: “65. In other words, to characterise a decision of the administrator as “irrational” the court has to hold, on material, that it is a decision “so outrageous” as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards. Adoption of “proportionality” into administrative law was left for the future. 66. In essence, the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [ (2003) 4 SCC 579 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 528].) 73. While exercising power of judicial review courts should not proceed where two views are possible and one view has been taken.” 13. At this stage, it is appropriate to consider the decisions relied on by Mr. Pratap. 13.1. In Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam, the plaintiff was agitating against construction by the defendants, whereby his right of access to public road was affected. Plaintiff was running a flour-mill and in connection with the running of his flour-mill, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to bring carts as well as lorries and the available space between the offending construction certainly is not sufficient to enable the lorries or even the carts to be brought into the flour-mill premises. In the above factual background, Madras High Court held that owners of houses of premises abutting a roadway are entitled to have access to that roadway from all points on the boundary on their land and if any obstruction is caused over the road margin securing such access, the person is entitled to have such access can certainly enforce that right. 13.2. In K.V.K. Janardhanan, the grievance of the plaintiff was against conversion of the road as road margin and putting up any sort of obstruction in the suit road and in road margin in such a way to prevent the plaintiff to have access on the property. 13.2. In K.V.K. Janardhanan, the grievance of the plaintiff was against conversion of the road as road margin and putting up any sort of obstruction in the suit road and in road margin in such a way to prevent the plaintiff to have access on the property. Finding was recorded that suit cart was in existence for long time. The Madras High Court, by reviewing earlier precedents, held that neither of the Government nor the Municipality or any local body has got to put up any obstruction over the public street so as to prevent it from having any access to adjoining land. Owner of the land adjoining the public street has got right of access at every point where his or her land adjoins public street. 13.3. In Godavari Bhai, the Municipal council decided to construct Bunks on the road margin or the footway, the road margin on which those bunks were sought to be constructed was a footway on the side of metalled portion of the road and it was not a separate plot of land belonging to the Municipality. This action was held to be illegal by the Kerala High Court. 13.4. Mst. Bhagwanti is a case of granting of lease by Nagar Mahapalika. A portion of the plot claimed by the plaintiff and plaintiff’s right for egress and ingress to her house was threatened to be completely affected. The 2nd defendant therein constructed a compound wall by which egress and ingress was denied. Thus decision rendered by Allahabad Court in the said case turned on the facts of that case. 13.5. In Patna City Municipality, plaintiffs are the owners of the property abutting to Convent Road. Between the metalled portion road-way and the plaintiffs boundary was a strip of land upon which a kachcha drain was situated at one time and between that drain and the plaintiffs boundary wall was a narrow strip of land. The Patna City Municipality leased this strip of land in favour of the defendant and defendant erected a petrol bunk. Plaintiffs alleged that on account of such construction, plaintiffs access to the road-way was denied. The Patna High Court held that owner of the land abutting the road-way is entitled to access to that road-way at all points on the boundary. 14. Plaintiffs alleged that on account of such construction, plaintiffs access to the road-way was denied. The Patna High Court held that owner of the land abutting the road-way is entitled to access to that road-way at all points on the boundary. 14. Having regard to long line of precedents, few of which were referred to in this judgment on the scope of judicial review against executive decision, more particularly in decisions affecting larger public interest, I am not persuaded to agree with the decisions relied on by Mr. Pratap. Moreover, those decisions arise in peculiar facts of those cases. Further, there is a marked shift in interference by writ Courts in infrastructure projects. 14.1. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [ (2000) 10 SCC 664 ], Supreme Court is pleased to hold, “229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them.” (emphasis supplied) 15. This very issue has come up for consideration in W.P.No.40542 of 2014. The owner of the property challenged the decision of the respondent corporation to construct foot over bridge abutting the north-western road frontage of the scheduled property. Laches is one of them.” (emphasis supplied) 15. This very issue has come up for consideration in W.P.No.40542 of 2014. The owner of the property challenged the decision of the respondent corporation to construct foot over bridge abutting the north-western road frontage of the scheduled property. It was contended that on account of such construction, the road facing of the petitioner property was affected and that the decision was taken without prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner. In the said case also, the owner applied for building permission and the application was pending by the time decision to construct foot over bridge was taken. Similar contentions were urged as urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in this writ petition. Said contentions were rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Learned single Judge was pleased to hold as under: “11. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it has to be seen whether the grievance of the first petitioner with regard to the location of FOB in front of its plot can be entertained in a writ petition by this Court or not. It is well known that the Government in the custodian of public interest. When the first respondent Corporation wants to take up some developmental activity in the land belonging to it, a private person cannot object to such activity which is for the benefit of the public at large on the imaginary ground of affecting his remote private right. In the instant case, admittedly the first petitioner is the owner of a plot of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas having frontage of 92.52 meters on Northern side. There is a 11 meter gap from the boundary of the first petitioner to the location of the landing of the FOB. Apart from it, the FOB occupies only 25 meters frontage leaving the petitioners 67.52 meters frontage which can conveniently be utilized for the ingress and egress of the office goers/residents in the buildings proposed to be constructed. In fact, no building is constructed and no gate is erected by the time of construction of FOB. It appears from the pleadings that the first petitioner submitted a building plan on 26.08.2014 and it is not yet approved by the second respondent. In fact, no building is constructed and no gate is erected by the time of construction of FOB. It appears from the pleadings that the first petitioner submitted a building plan on 26.08.2014 and it is not yet approved by the second respondent. If there are any changes that are required with regard to the location of the gates, the petitioners can as well adjust the same. The construction of FOB on a road not belonging to the petitioners by the respondent cannot be found fault with. The learned Senior Counsel could not point out the impact of FOB on the inner constructions that have to be made pursuant to the building plan submitted to the second respondent. If at all any affect had to be noticed, the FOB may affect the front view of the proposed building, but it will not interfere with its activity inside its boundaries. Hence, I am of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable as the main dispute relates to the construction of the FOB by the third respondent though at the instance of respondents 1 and 2.” 16. I am in respectful agreement with the above decision. 17. Stark reality is there is huge migration to urban areas in search of employment and education. Population in Hyderabad city has multiplied by many times. Growing population is putting pressure on existing infrastructure, requiring new means to cater to increase in demand of infrastructure facilities. Construction of foot over bridges is a necessary concomitant to attend to growing demand. These are all amenities for convenience of public at large, for smooth flow of traffic and to minimise, if not eliminate road accidents involving pedestrians. It is a fact that majority of road accidents in cities involve pedestrians. There are no proper footpaths and most of the existing footpaths are either occupied by petty street vendors or shop keepers or used as parking lots. Crossing road is an herculean task, more particularly on busy roads and problem is acute when carriageway is bigger and divided. In the instant case, carriageway is bigger and divided. On this road, there is heavy movement of students on account of location of leading educational institutions. There is no alternative method by which people can cross road. Thus, construction of foot over bridge is essential requirement in larger public interest. 18. In the instant case, carriageway is bigger and divided. On this road, there is heavy movement of students on account of location of leading educational institutions. There is no alternative method by which people can cross road. Thus, construction of foot over bridge is essential requirement in larger public interest. 18. The report placed on record would disclose that extensive study was conducted to identify the location and finalized the present place. It appears initially the foot over bridge was to land in front of the petitioner property occupying larger area leaving little frontage. On further examination, this location is slightly pushed towards 40 feet wide road giving more access to the main road from the property of the petitioner. The changed plan would result in landing of foot over bridge to the edge of 40 feet road. It appears from the averments in the counter affidavit that the authorities have considered the traffic flow at various points, the road alignment at crucial places, more particular curved nature of the road, the scope of accessibility to students, who would be major users of this foot over bridge, to identify the place. It is specifically averred that alternative places as suggested by the petitioner were also considered and were found to be not suitable for location. One of the reasons assigned is that high tension electricity tower was located at a place suggested by the petitioner and such tower cannot be disturbed. The convenience of students was assigned greater importance, so that they would need to cover only short distance to reach the foot over bridge. This statement made by the respondents in the counter affidavit would clearly demonstrate that detailed exercise was undertaken and all alternative locations were considered before identifying this place. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no application of mind and mechanically subject place is identified. 19. Construction of foot over bridge is in the larger public interest. When a decision of the competent authority is for the benefit of larger public, the individual right, even assuming there is one, has to yield to the larger public interest. Moreover in the instant case, the right of the petitioner to access his property is not affected. His property is not utilized for constructing the foot over bridge. The property of the petitioner is having connectivity from two roads. Moreover in the instant case, the right of the petitioner to access his property is not affected. His property is not utilized for constructing the foot over bridge. The property of the petitioner is having connectivity from two roads. No law recognizes that owner of the property facing the main road can always have 100% access to the road with entire frontage and such frontage cannot be curtailed by whatever means. If this contention is taken to logical end, foot over bridges, flyovers, metro rail network etc. cannot be constructed as construction of these infrastructure facilities would certainly have an impact on the private properties abutting the public roads. 20. The decision of the respondents cannot be held as not being informed by any reason whatsoever and capricious, thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the petitioner that no foot over bridge is required. On the contrary, he would fairly submit that such foot over bridge is required on account of traffic flow on this stretch of the road. He would only submit that it should not be located in front of his property. For the reasons already discussed, this contention has no merit. It is appropriate to note that no mala fides are attributed to any of the Officers of the respondent corporation. Thus, this Court do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the competent authority in identifying the location for establishing the foot over bridge on Road No.3 of Banjara Hills warranting interference. 21. In the above analysis, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.