Challenging repair works on an irrigation canal, the petitioner argued the timing was inappropriate. The High Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi to dictate technical timing and directed the Government to utilize funds effectively before dismissing the PIL.
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with no costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.311 of 2013
DATE: 01.07.2013
Between:
T. Ramu And
… Petitioner
The Thungabadra Board, rep., by its Chairman, O/o. Central Water Commission, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
PUPLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.311 of 2013
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This Public Interest Litigation is taken out to stall the repair works proposed to be carried out to the Thungabadra Irrigation Canal.
According to the petitioner the repair works should have been done at an appropriate time and if the same are undertaken during the rainy season, it would not be effective and therefore the same should have been taken during the months of January to May, 2013 by which period the repair works in the barrage would be effective.
We are of the view that the petitioner has no locus to say what would be the appropriate time to take up the repair works. It is for the technical expert, who can say what would be the appropriate time. Moreover, public works depends upon many factors such as availability of funds, technical facilities etc. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this Court cannot pass any order at the instance of the petitioner. However, we direct the Government to undertake the repair works effectively so that the funds allotted for this purpose are not wasted.
With the above observation, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
______________ G. ROHINI, J
Date: 01.07.2013
ES
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to dictate the timing of repair works on an irrigation canal.
Whether the Court can pass orders regarding the timing of public works.
Whether the impugned Public Interest Litigation should be allowed or dismissed.
T. Ramu
The Thungabadra Board & others
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
