Disposed

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park v. The District Collector

Telangana HC27 Aug 2012WP/11313/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a PIL and writ petition filed by a children's park society regarding alleged inaction by respondent authorities towards representations made to protect land earmarked for a public park from encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to consider representations regarding land encroachment and pass necessary orders within four weeks.

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.143 of 2012 & WRIT PETITION No. 11313 OF 2010

¶3

DATED:27.8.2012

¶4

Between: The Society, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Children’s Park, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R. District.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector, R.R. District and others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.143 of 2012 & WRIT PETITION No. 11313 OF 2010

¶12

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

¶13

Assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioner-society, the petitioner-society filed the public interest litigation as well as the writ petition.

¶14

According to the petitioner, the land in question is ear-marked for a public purpose, i.e., for a park. Petitioner alleges that when some people tried to encroach the said land, petitioner made representations dated 27.10.2011 and 8.12.2011 to the respondent-authorities to take necessary action to protect the land from being encroached upon. But, the respondent-authorities did not take any action thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the aforementioned public interest litigation as well as writ petition.

¶15

Under the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent-authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations so filed by the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider and pass necessary orders on the aforesaid representations filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶17

The public interest litigation and the writ petition are accordingly disposed of.

¶18

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶19

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 27-8-2012 pnb

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mudigonda Durga Prasad, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Kamala Bar and Restaurant, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Campaign for Housing and Tenural Rights (Chatri) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Asn.Iv)

Forum for a Better Hyderabad,rep.byi ts Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

G. Bala Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs Mukesh Kumar