The petitioner challenged the non-consideration of his representation against establishing a water plant under the Sujalam Suphalam Scheme. The court noted the representation was rejected and granted liberty to challenge that rejection.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the rejection of his representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.21427 of 2009
Date : 14-12-2009
Between : Rachakonda Balabikshapathy .. Petitioner
And The Chief Engineer (RWS), Erramanzil, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.21427 of 2009
ORDER:
This Court issued notice before admission on 15-102009.
5th respondent filed counter affidavit.
The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17-7-2009 requesting not to establish water plant under “Sujalam Suphalam Scheme” at Jillela Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District or to convert the petitioner’s water plant into the proposed water plant under “Sujalam Suphalam Scheme” as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to establish a water plant under “Sujalam Suphalam Scheme” at Jillela Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District and to pass such other suitable orders.
Several averments had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.
In the counter affidavit, specific stand had been taken that the representation of the petitioner had been considered and rejected by the 3rd respondent on 21-10-
2009 and intimation also was issued to the petitioner. Several contentions had been advanced before this Court touching the merits and demerits. Inasmuch as already the representation had been rejected, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the same if the petitioner is so advised.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
_________________ Justice P.S.Narayana
Date : 14-12-2009
AM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the non-consideration of the petitioner's representation regarding the establishment of a water plant should be allowed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rachakonda Balabikshapathy
The Chief Engineer (RWS), Erramanzil, Hyderabad and others
P.S. Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
