ORDER : 1. I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is filed to bring the proposed respondent as respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition as well as in the Interlocutory Application, is dismissed as I.A. No. 3 of 2021 is filed with similar prayer. 2. I.A. No. 3 is filed to bring the proposed respondent as respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition as well as in the Interlocutory Application, is allowed and the office is directed to amend the cause title as prayed for. 3. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “......to issue writ, orders or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to construct Toll Plaza adjacent to the Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institution at Sy. Nos. 137 and 138 and “Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao Ashrama Patashala” at Sy. No. 141 and Mahatma Jyothi Rao Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Junior College on the other side of the road Mopidevi (V), Krishna District (School zone) declaring their action as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the National Highways Act 1956, directing not to proceed further and pass such other orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. With the consent of all the learned counsel including the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing. 5. This Court has heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Varma, learned standing counsel for NHAI, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, who are the main answering respondents, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 4 to 6. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondents have highhandedly attempting to construct a toll plaza right next to the educational institutions, who are the petitioners. It is his contention that there are 460 students in Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institution, adjacent to the school, Government established Mandali Venkata Krishna Rao Ashrama Patashala, wherein about 310 students are studying. These schools were established for uplifting the educational standards of the children belonging to the backward communities. The institutions were later separated and renamed as Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential School. These schools were established for uplifting the educational standards of the children belonging to the backward communities. The institutions were later separated and renamed as Mahatma Jyothiba Phule A.P. Backward Classes Welfare Residential School. The total number of students, according to the learned senior counsel, are 1100 students as on date. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a part of the upgradation of Machilipatnam to Avanigadda national highway a toll plaza is proposed to be erected near the educational institutions. Since there would be disturbances to the schools and health hazards to the students of the institution due to this the petitioners have made representations to the authorities to relocate the said toll plaza to avoid the health hazards to the students, but the respondents are going ahead with the construction of the toll plaza. It is essential submission of the learned senior counsel that the toll plaza is being erected abetting to the institutions in a school zone. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues in line with what is stated in the writ affidavit. He also relies upon the additional affidavit that has been filed, wherein, in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, a sketch is filed showing that the toll plaza can be erected at various other places on the same road instead of next to the two educational institutions. Learned senior counsel also relies upon the Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the National Highway Authorities Act and points out that the distances specified therein are not been adhered to and toll plaza is located within 10 kms. of the said existing toll plaza. Therefore, learned senior counsel argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and grant an order as prayed for. 7. In response to this, learned standing counsel argues that the project being executed is a national project for improvement of NH 216 being developed at a total length of 374.4 kms. at the cost of Rs. 4003.39 crores. He relies upon the counter filed on 13.12.2022 with USR No. 63919 of 2021 to argue that the toll plaza can be constructed or located keeping the view the following factors: (1) Land availability. (2) Stream of traffic on Toll Plaza. (3) Visibility for the approaching traffic. (4) Reasonably away from road intersections and rail crossings. 4003.39 crores. He relies upon the counter filed on 13.12.2022 with USR No. 63919 of 2021 to argue that the toll plaza can be constructed or located keeping the view the following factors: (1) Land availability. (2) Stream of traffic on Toll Plaza. (3) Visibility for the approaching traffic. (4) Reasonably away from road intersections and rail crossings. (5) Free from risk of flooding and submergence. (6) Preferably on flat land and away from congested urban locations. 8. Learned counsel argues that keeping in view of the above conditions the technical consultant has proposed the construction of toll plaza at Km 116+540 at Mopidevi village. This was approved by the Government of India. It is also asserted that even prior to this widening and formation of NH 216 there was a busy National Highway 214-A running through this particular area and next to the two institutions. It is asserted that busses and vehicular traffic have been moving on this road, which has a width of 7 mtrs. After the widening was completed the present width of the road is 12 mtrs. The road work at the point of toll plaza has also been completed. It is reiterated that this road bearing No. NH 214-A was existing for a long period and over the period of years. It is, therefore, contended that these two educational institutions are in peaceful existence on the existing highway for years together. It is noticed that after the approval was obtained certain portion of the school building belonging to the Government Ashram High School had to be dismantled. When representations were received about this issue, the respondent authorities have decided to shift the location of the toll plaza to 208 mtrs. away. Only the compound wall will have to reconstructed. It is reiterated that there is no risk to the educational institutions or health hazards. Learned standing counsel points out that in view of the formation of the toll plaza, the vehicles will move at lower speed. The vehicles will also be “fast tag compliant” with automatic operation and therefore there will be a quick movement. Lastly, it is submitted that this location is a much more suitable for the location of the toll plaza. In view of the fact that the other location suggested by the petitioners is located in a curve portion, visibility is concerned about 30 houses have to be removed. Lastly, it is submitted that this location is a much more suitable for the location of the toll plaza. In view of the fact that the other location suggested by the petitioners is located in a curve portion, visibility is concerned about 30 houses have to be removed. Therefore, learned standing counsel argues that after considering the submissions made by the petitioners about the alternative location a decision was taken to locate the toll plaza at a distance of 208 mtrs. Paragraphs 11 (i) and 11 (ii) of his counter are highlighted by the learned standing counsel. It is also submitted that any reconstruction and the safety measures that are necessary for the little dislocation that will be caused, will be met by NHAI authorities also. 9. Learned standing counsel also relies upon the 2nd affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and argues in line thereof. He also submits that the new location provided for the toll plaza, which is at 208 mtrs. away from the earlier location, is the ideal location for the construction of toll plaza. It is also stated that toll plaza was decided to be shifted further 5 mtrs. away in order to mitigate the damage to the school compound wall also and if the toll plaza is located at a further distance of 5 mtrs. away there will not be any use of the land, and the structure, building, compound wall etc. of the school building will not be affected. It is reiterated that the land acquisition of about 4.5 Acres have already completed and compensation of Rs. 2.87 crores has already been paid. The construction of the toll plaza has been commenced and the acquired land will be rendered useless if further delay is caused. 10. Apart from this, further affidavits were also filed by both the parties. Learned standing counsel relied on an affidavit dated 02.02.2022, which is filed into the Court on 03.02.2022 with USR No. 4298 of 2022. In this it is asserted that the toll plaza now being established within the limits of Mopidevi Varpu village contrary to the rules, which prescribed that the toll plaza should be located at a distance of 10 kms. It is also asserted that there is an existing toll plaza within a distance of 2000 mtrs. 11. In this it is asserted that the toll plaza now being established within the limits of Mopidevi Varpu village contrary to the rules, which prescribed that the toll plaza should be located at a distance of 10 kms. It is also asserted that there is an existing toll plaza within a distance of 2000 mtrs. 11. The respondents have filed a further affidavit dated 28.03.2022, wherein it is asserted that the distance of 10 kms. which is asserted by the petitioners, the applicability is to municipalities only and the Mopidevi village does not fell within this. It is reiterated that the toll plaza which is established by the Navayuga Engineering company for the purpose of bridge constructed across the river. It is stated that the said toll plaza is temporary in nature and will be removed by the said company after BOT period is expired. The toll plaza being established at Mopidevi is owned by the Government of India. As far as the second toll plaza at Munjuluru village it is reiterated that the guidelines being issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be followed. COURT: 12. This Court has heard the learned counsels and noted their submissions. The affidavits, additional affidavits etc., that are filed are also considered. 13. This Court notices that the petitioners have come to the Court by filing W.P. No. 17396 of 2021 on 13.08.2021 with specific allegations. The essential contention raised in the writ affidavit is that there would be disturbance to the students of the two schools and health hazards caused to them if toll plaza is constructed at a particular spot. This is the sum and substance of their essential grievance as spelt out in the writ affidavit. It is important to note that the students by themselves are not agitating before this Court. The parents of the students have given representations to the District Collector through a Sangham, what is known as the South India Agnikula Vahnikula Kshatriya Mahasangha. This is filed as a material paper in the writ affidavit. However, their case is now espoused by the present petitioners. Their locus is a serious issue which deserves to be considered by this Court. This is not a public interest litigation. Unless the petitioners have a right and the respondents have a duty to enforce the same a mandamus cannot be granted. However, their case is now espoused by the present petitioners. Their locus is a serious issue which deserves to be considered by this Court. This is not a public interest litigation. Unless the petitioners have a right and the respondents have a duty to enforce the same a mandamus cannot be granted. The petitioners’ case on these grounds has to fail. This is an inherent jurisdictional defect. 14. Apart from this, this Court notices that the case is underwent number of improvements in the form of affidavits and additional affidavits that have been filed. 15. Considering the submissions made by both the parties it is noticed that the representation for establishment of a toll plaza is a decision that is taken by the technical experts in the field. The petitioners have not pointed out “why” the decision taken by the recognized experts in the field is flawed or incorrect. The law on the subject is well settled in matters of this nature. This Court does not have a technical expertise to interfere with the decision of the experts on the field. Where technical experts have given their decision the Court should lightly interfere as per the settled in (case law to be cited here). 16. The only two grounds urged are traffic congestion and health hazard. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel the two educational institutions have been located on this road for a large number of years. The NH 214 is also running next to the institutions. This is visible even from the photographs filed and the writ affidavit. How the new NH 216 will cause further health hazards to the students or disturbance to the schools is not pleaded or proved with certainty by the petitioners. The details necessary for this Court to come to a conclusion that there would be health hazard or disturbance to the petitioner’s schools by the location of the toll plaza is not explained. The flow of traffic would remain same. The fact that the vehicles would not slow down before the toll plaza before they pay toll fee etc. and its effect on the health or the school activities is not borne out by the record. As mentioned by the respondents toll plaza will be Fast tag complaint. Therefore, vehicles would not really be halting for long. The fact that the vehicles would not slow down before the toll plaza before they pay toll fee etc. and its effect on the health or the school activities is not borne out by the record. As mentioned by the respondents toll plaza will be Fast tag complaint. Therefore, vehicles would not really be halting for long. Even otherwise the further affidavits filed by the respondent authorities have already shown clearly that the toll plaza is being shifted to a distance of 208 mtrs. away. The location was initially put at Kms. 116 + 540 at Mopidevi village. It s now decided to be shifted to Kms. 116+332 location which is 208 mtrs. away (332 + 208 = 540). This new location is thus 208 mtrs. away as per the revised plans. This is further decided to be shifted to an extra 5 mtrs. away laterally from the school. That the new location would cause any difficulty or health hazard is not clearly explained by the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the respondents have stated on oath that the land acquisition proceedings have already been completed and a sum of Rs. 2.87 crores is being deposited towards the cost of the land acquisition. These facts are also not really controverted. The total cost of the project is Rs. 4003.39 crores. The law on the subject is sufficiently clear and when projects of national importance are being executed the Court should be very slow and circumspect in staying the execution of the same. Although this expression of law is made in the case of tenders, the proposition of law that public projects should not be stayed cannot be overlooked by this Court. The delay due to execution and the consequences are to be weighed before stalling/halting the same. In National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 111, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: “95. Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima-facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala-fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. With these words of caution and advise, we rest the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the concerned Courts, which ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the national interest involved.” 17. Quashing a decision can lead to increased expenditure and a burden on the administration [Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. 18. Lastly, the amendment to the Specific Relief Act wherein it is now laid down that public infrastructure project should not be halted or stayed is also an issue that this Court has to consider and keep in mind. The amended Specific Relief Act clearly prohibits the grant of an order against public projects. This was also considered in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in N.G. Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 336 (Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022). 19. Lastly, the learned standing counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chairman National Highways Authority of India and Others vs. R. Murali and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 647 about Rule 8 of the National Highway Rules, which judgment this Court opines, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. Lastly, the learned standing counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chairman National Highways Authority of India and Others vs. R. Murali and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 647 about Rule 8 of the National Highway Rules, which judgment this Court opines, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The road was being used by the town people and will be used by them also. 20. After considering all these issues and the undertakings given by the respondents in their counter affidavits that any marginal work that is necessary will be done, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference in this case. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.