Disposed

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao v. Government of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2013PIL/290/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted an affidavit confirming the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation's action plan for idol immersion in identified lakes. The Court directed respondents to sensitize the public regarding immersion restrictions and issued a short order for monitoring compliance with environmental guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Short Order of 12 weeks issued; directed GHMC to comply with affidavit statements and all respondents to sensitize the public on immersion protocols.

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao Vs Government of A.P. — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF JULY , TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI DILIP B. BHOSALE, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI A.V.SESHA SAI

¶6

WP. NOs:25058 of 2011, 16316 of 2000, 14776 of 2005, 2109, 2135 and 15595 of 2006 and PIL No. 290 OF 2012

¶7

WP. NO. 25058 OF 2011:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mamidi Venu Madhav, S/o late M.L.Narayana, Advocate and Trained Social worker R/o H.No.1-8-700/30, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶10

..... Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Environment, Forest, Science & Technology, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests,

¶16

Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶17

6 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Block-A, District Commercial Complex, Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 17.

¶18

7 Buddha Purnima Project (BPP), rep. by its Officer on Special Duty (OSD)

¶19

6-3-1-2/1, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶20

8 A.P., Pollution Control Board, rep by its Member Secretary, Paryavarana Bhavan, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 9 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶21

10 The Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶22

.....Respondents

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to

¶24

issue an appropriate writ order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and direct the respondents to Prohibit immersions of all types of idols made with plaster of paris or clay in Hussain Sagar lake to protect the lake from pollution and declare the action of the respondents in allowing the immersion of idols in Hussain Sagar lake, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India vide Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inspite of the notices of the petitioner dt.20.08.2011;

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MAMIDI VENU MADHAV, Party in person Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 10 : ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR ENVIRONMENT Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : SRI PONNAM ASHOK GOUD (ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL) Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI M. DHANAMJAYA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY

¶26

WP .NO:16316 of 2000

¶27

Between:

¶28

1 Sri C.S.Subba Rao, Advocate, R/o.12-13-67, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶29

2 Sri S.N.Rao, Advocate, R/o.12-13-67, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶30

..... Petitioners

¶31

AND

¶32

1 The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra

¶33

Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

2 The Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Andhra

¶35

Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶36

3 The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

¶37

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

4 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Government of Andhra

¶39

Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

5 The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶41

6 The Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi.

¶42

.....Respondents

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the letter dt: 1-8-2000 published in ‘THE HINDU’ English daily News Paper, dt: 9-7-2000, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for remarks from the respondents herein in and connected to the 1) Usage of plastic bags, sachets, bottles etc as packing materials by the shop-keepers causing the death of stray animals after eating the wrappings which were mostly thrown by the consumers on the streets which is also hazardous to the welfare of the human beings as per Medical Opinion. 2) Recycling of the used plastic bags, bottles, sachets, polythene products etc by the manufacturers which causes chemical reaction to the food products endangering human health, and to pass appropriate orders directing the respondents herein; 1) To ban complete manufacture of plastic and polythene materials usually used for packing especially food materials, or used as containers or carry bags for other nonfood items of consumption; 2) To prohibit the sale of plastic polythene materials products etc, which go into house-hold and commercial out fits like hotels, restaurants, Railway catering, marriage functions, receptions etc, which come into contact with food items pre-cooked or after cooking; 3) To punish people who throw indiscriminately all around used plastic polythene packing materials on the streets and; 4) To mandate the local municipalities and panchayats to keep vigilance to constantly clear such plastic waste and punish people under appropriate municipal statutes/Panchayat Acts;

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents : ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶45

WP .NO:14776 of 2005

¶46

Between:

¶47

B.K.S.R.Ayyangar, 24 B-10-27, Raghavacharya Street, R.R.Pet, Eluru-534 002, West Godavari District.

¶48

..... Petitioner

¶49

AND

¶50

1 The Executive officer, Dwaraka Thirumala Devasthanam, Dwaraka Thirumala, West Godavari District.

¶51

2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt. of A.P., Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶52

3 The Director of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶53

4 The Secretary to Govt., of A.P., Archaeology and Museums Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

5 The Secretary to the Govt. of A.P., Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶55

6 The Collector & District Magistrate, West Godavari District at Eluru.

¶56

7 The Superintending Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of

¶57

India

¶58

Kendriya Sadan, Suntan Bazar, Hyderabad 8 The A.P. Wakf Board, through Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶59

(R7 is impleaded as per court order dt. 2-8-2005)

¶60

(R8 is impleaded as suo motu as per court order dt.11-122006)

¶61

.....Respondents

¶62

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the letter dated: 30-6-2005 sent by the petitioner herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to call for the records and remarks from the respondents herein relating to (i) destruction of thousands of beautiful idols of the southern side of the Galigopuram of Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple through unskilled labourers without caring it's historical and archaeological values by the Executive Officer, Dwaraka Thirumala Devasthanam, Dwaraka Thirumala, West Godavari District, unilaterally, under the guise of repairs and renovation and thereby hurting the feelings of the believers of historical heritage (ii) contemplating to destroy the idols on the remaining three sides of the Galigopuram of the said temple by the Executive Officer though there is instructions from the authorities of Archaeological Department to him, not to destroy the idols on the three sides of the Galigopuram of Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, and this Hon'ble Court is requested to pass appropriate orders directing the concerned authorities not to destroy the idols of the Galigopuram on other three sides of the Galigopuram of Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Thirumala Devasthanam, Dwaraka Thirumala, West Godavari District, and to direct the respondent i.e., the Director of Archaeology and Museum, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad to consider the possibilities in recognizing and declaring the said temple as protected monument and to protect and preserve the historical, archaeological values of the said temples in the interest of justice;

¶63

Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 7 : ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI SHAFATH AHMAD KHAN

¶64

WP .NO:2109 of 2006

¶65

Between:

¶66

1 Smt. P. Radha Bai W/o Sri Kishnalal

¶67

2 P. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Srikishanlal

¶68

..... Petitioners

¶69

AND

¶70

1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by

¶71

Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

¶72

3 The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, rep by Managing Director,

¶73

Hyderabad

¶74

4 The Government of A.P., rep. by the Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶75

.....Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition dt: 27-01-2007 sent by the petitioners herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to call for records and remarks from the Respondents herein and connected to (i) the Public lavatory situated for the last one and half year near Bandi-ka-adda Murgichowk; (ii) the complaints of the residents for its removal; (iii) over flowing of drainage water from the said lavatory resulting health hazards and diseases like malaria and Dengue etc. to the inmates of surrounding houses; And this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the concerned authorities to remove the public lavatory from their residential area in the Public interest;

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 &2 : SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SMT. M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN.

¶77

WP .NO:2135 of 2006

¶78

Between:

¶79

The President, Consumer Protection Council, R/o. 23-7-12, Ghouse Saheb Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶80

..... Petitioner

¶81

AND

¶82

1 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶83

2 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶84

3 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶85

4 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶86

5 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶87

6 The Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment Science Technology, Forests Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶88

7 The Member Secretary, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶89

8 The Executive Engineer (FAC) West Godavari, Nidadovole, West Godavari District.

¶90

9 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram. 10 Nivasana Sthalala Abhivrudhi Seva Samkshama Sangam, Vuyyur (Regd.No.456/05) rep. by Branch Secretary D.Ramesh, R/o. Veeranki, Pavidimukkala Area, Krishna District

¶91

11 M. Veeraswamy S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Veeranki Laku Vg., Pavidimukkala Area, Krishna District 12 B. Arjuna Rao S/o. Sankara Rao, Veeranki Laku Vg., Pavidimukkala Area, Krishna District

¶92

RR 10 to 12 impleaded as per court order dt.24-4-2006 in WPMP. No. 10612/06

¶93

The Secretary, Department, of Municipal Administration, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶94

The Director of Municipalities, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. (RR 13 & 14 are impleaded as per court order dt: 24-7-2006) .....Respondents

¶95

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition dt: 2-1-2006 sent by the petitioner herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for records and remarks from the Respondents herein in and connected to (i) negligence of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in protecting the Major canals that supply drinking water to the Panchayats and Municipalities, and thereby affecting the health of the Citizens; (ii) inaction of the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh on the complaint given by the petitioner by denying its responsibility ; (iii) failure of the said Department in stopping the disposal of garbage into the drinking water sources; and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the concerned authorities to take suitable steps in stopping the disposal of garbage into the drinking water sources and protecting the health of the citizens, in the interests of justice;

¶96

Counsel for the Respondents No.10 KUMAR POTTURI	to 12: SRI	SURESH
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 FOR IRRIGATION	:	GP
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 &	9 :	GP
FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 FOR HOME	:	GP
Counsel for the Respondent No.4	:	GP
FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 FOR MUNICIPAL	: ADMINIS	GP TRATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 FOR ENVIRONMENT	:	GP

¶97

WP .NO:15595 of 2006

¶98

Between:

¶99

In Re

¶100

The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶101

The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶102

The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶103

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the Suo Motu petition taken up while disposing of WP.No.7833 of 2006 on 22.06.2006 filed by Reddy Ramachandra Rao, S/o. Venkatappanna, R/o. Ananthapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, W.G. District for declaring the action of the respondents therein in not protecting the water tank situated in Sy.No.525 of Ananthapalli village, Nallagerla Mandal by changing alignment slightly in respect of canal under Indiara Sagar Project as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001-6-SCC496 and also contrary to the Memo No. 65961/ASN.1 (1)/97-11 dt. 08.02.1999 issued by the Government of A.P. and for consequential direction to the Respondents not to remove or demolish the said tank for the purpose of laying canal under the said project and keeping in view the directions contained in the order dt. 20.04.2006 in WP.no.7833 of 2006 a reading of which shows that the court had enlarged the scope of the W.P. filed by Sri Reddy Ramachandra Rao and called upon the government to show cause as to why a general direction may be not issued in public interest and hence the Registry is directed to register a separate Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus for not allowing water tank/tank bed or land described as "Cheruvu" be put to any other use by any public authority or private individual or is allowed to be used for any other purpose.

¶104

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR GAD

¶105

PIL .NO:290 of 2012

¶106

Between:

¶107

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao S/o late B. Kishan Rao

¶108

..... Petitioner

¶109

AND

¶110

1 Government of A.P., Forest, Environment, Science & Technology Department,

¶111

rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶112

2 Government of A.P., Minor Irrigation, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶113

3 Government of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 A.P. Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary 6 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner. 7 Director General of Police, Government of A.P., Police Head Quarters, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 8 District Collector, Hyderabad. 9 District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 10 District Collector, Karimnagar District. 11 District Collector, Nizamabad District. 12 District Collector, Adilabad District. 13 District Collector, Medak District. 14 District Collector, Mehbubnagar District. 15 District Collector, Warangal District 16 District Collector, Nalgonda District. 17 District Collector, Khammam District. 18 District Collector, Kurnool District. 19 District Collector, Anantapur District. 20 District Collector, Cuddapah District. 21 District Collector, Chittoor District. 22 District Collector, Nellore District. 23 District Collector, Prakasham District. 24 District Collector, Guntur District. 25 District Collector, Krishna District. 26 District Collector, West Godavari District. 27 District Collector, East Godavari District. 28 District Collector, Vishakhapatham District. 29 District Collector, Vizainagaram District. 30 District Collector, Srikakulam District. 31 Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 32 Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶114

33 Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.

¶115

34 Commissioner of Police, Vishakhapatnam.

¶116

35 Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad.

¶117

36 Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District.

¶118

37 Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District.

¶119

38 Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District.

¶120

39 Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District.

¶121

40 Superintendent of Police, Medak District.

¶122

41 Superintendent of Police, Mehbubnagar District.

¶123

42 Superintendent of Police, Warangal District.

¶124

43 Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District.

¶125

44 Superintendent of Police, Khammam District.

¶126

45 Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District.

¶127

46 Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District.

¶128

47 Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah District.

¶129

48 Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District.

¶130

49 Superintendent of Police, Nellore District.

¶131

50 Superintendent of Police, Prakasham District.

¶132

51 Superintendent of Police, Guntur District.

¶133

52 Superintendent of Police, Krishna District.

¶134

53 Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District.

¶135

54 Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.

¶136

55 Superintendent of Police, Vishakhapatnam District.

¶137

56 Superintendent of Police, Vizainagaram District.

¶138

57 Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District.

¶139

.....Respondents

¶140

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the collective inaction of the respondents in not taking adequate and effective action to quell pollution caused to water bodies by idol immersion through out the State of Andhra Pradesh and not following The Guidelines for Idol Immersion, 2010 issued by Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment & Forest as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the public health policy and public interest and consequently direct the respondents to take steps adhering to orders passed in T. Ramakrishna Rao v. Principal Secretary & others reported in 2001 (5) ALD 299 and guidelines prescribed in The Guidelines for Idol Immersion, 2010 issued by Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment & Forest.

¶141

Counsel for the petitioner :	SRI S.
NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :	GP FOR
FOREST
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR IRR	IGATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :	GP FOR
MUNICIPAL ADMN.
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 :	GP FOR
PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 :	SRI Y.
SRINIVAS MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 :	SRI
M.DHANAMJAYA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.7, 31 to 57: FOR HOME	GP
Counsel for the Respondent No.8 to 31 : FOR REVENUE	GP

¶142

These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed herein, and the orders of the High Court dated 12-09-2012 & 21-9-2012 made herein, and upon hearing the arguments of above mentioned counsels, and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae, and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, the Court made the following

¶143

ORDER:

¶144

Party-in-person absent.

¶145

Heard Mr. P. Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Mr. Mahender Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader.

¶146

Mr. P. Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel, has placed an affidavit dated 18.07.2016 of Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad Lakes and Water Bodies Management Circle, Irrigation Department, on record.

¶147

In para 5, it is specifically stated that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has submitted its action plan and the same has been accepted by the Utsav Committee. In the action plan, they have decided to encourage people, involving Utsav Committee, residents of Welfare Associations, for carrying out immersion of Idols in the identified lakes. It is further stated that GHMC has already undertaken construction of enclosures in 10 identified lakes, as named in the table, in clause (b) of para 5, to facilitate immersion of idols up to 8 feet height and they would complete the work before Ganesh Immersion.

¶148

The statement on the affidavit that the immersed Idols (debri) would also be removed within 24 hours from the ponds/enclosures is also accepted.

¶149

We hope and trust that GHMC shall comply with all the statements made on affidavit dated 18.07.2016 on time. We also observe that all the respondents shall take steps to sensitize the people not only in respect of immersion of idols but also height of Lord Ganesh idols.

¶150

S.O. to twelve weeks.

¶151

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶152

//TRUE COPY//

¶153

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Amicus Curiae 4. One CC to Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Advocate 5. One CC to Sri Mamidi Venu Madhav, Party-in-person (OPUC) 6. One CC to Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst. Solicitor General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 7. Two CCs to G.P. for Forest, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 8. Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 9. Two CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 10. Two CCs to G.P. for Irrigation, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 11. Two CCs to G.P. for GAD, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 12. Two CCs to G.P. for Municipal Admn., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 13. Two CCs to G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 14. Two CCs to G.P. for Environment, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 15. One CC to Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 16. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, Advocate (OPUC) 17. One CC to Sri M. Dhanamjaya Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 18. One CC to Sri Y. Srinivas Murthy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶154

One CC to Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, Advocate (OPUC)

¶155

One CC to Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

¶156

One CC to Smt. M. Venkateshwari, Advocate (OPUC)

¶157

Two Spare Copies

HIGH COURT

HACJ & AVSS, J

DATED: 18.7.2016

ORDER

WP. NOs:25058 of 2011, 16316 of 2000, 14776 of 2005, 2109, 2135 and 15595 of 2006 and PIL No. 290 OF 2012

¶163

DIRECTION

¶164

HIGH COURT

¶165

TRk Date of Drafting : 20.7.2016

HACJ & AVSS, J

DATED: 18.7.2016

ORDER

WP. NOs:25058 of 2011, 16316 of 2000, 14776 of 2005, 2109, 2135 and 15595 of 2006 and PIL No. 290 OF 2012

¶170

DIRECTION

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao v. Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao v. Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karumanchi Prasanna Kumar Vs The Election Commissioner

Syed Omer Shafi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal Secretary

M. Ravi Kumar, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

New Telengana Auto Drivers Trade Union Vs The Special Chief Principal Secretary

M/s. Forum for Rule of Law Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Padmanabhaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yenni Dhilleswara Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri K.Eswaraiah Vs The Special Chief Secretary and