Disposed

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC8 Oct 2012PIL/342/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the inaction of the District Collector in allotting houses under the Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme. The court directed the Collector to treat the petition as a representation, ensure due process, and decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to consider the PIL as a representation, pass a reasoned order, and allot houses within six weeks if entitlement is found.

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.342 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:8.10.2012

¶4

Between: Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam Regd. No.1790/2007, 1-1-60/2 RTC X Roads, Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad District Committee M. Srinivas … Petitioner And The District Collector Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.342 OF 2012

¶7

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶8

This public interest litigation is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not processing the applications for allotment of houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme till now, though the applications and requisite fee amount were received by the respondents in the year 2005 itself, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to provide houses to all the applicants of Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme in Hyderabad District.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

It appears that Rajeev Gruhakalpa Scheme was formulated by the Government in the year 2005, and as stated by the petitioner the respondents have received the applications and requisite fee in the same year, but they have not provided the houses to the applicants of the Scheme so far.

¶11

In the circumstances, we direct respondent No.1 - District Collector, Hyderabad, to consider this writ petition as a representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in the matter. If it is found that the petitioner association members are entitled to the benefit of the Scheme in question, respondent No.1 shall take necessary steps in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶12

The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of. No

¶13

costs.

¶14

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶15

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 8-10-2012

¶16

bnr

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajjala Gopinath Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Smt. N.Venkata Lakshm Vs The District Collector

Dr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Vs The Vice-Chancellor

Safdar Mirza Vs The Govt. of A.P Rept. by its Prl. Secretary

Kandadai Srinivasa Govinda Kumar S/o Kandadai Srirama Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by

Bharata Dharma Devatha Brahmachari Sri Sri Sri Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Batti Murali Singh, Vs The Syndicate Bank

V.Venkateswar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh

B.Tirupathi, Vs Fisheries Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.

Palepu Suryanarayana Vs Rangaraya Medical College

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti Vs Government of India