Dismissed

Sri D.Prabhu Kishore, v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC14 Jul 2014PIL/175/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL challenging respondent authorities' inaction regarding APRTC improvement proposals. The petitioners failed to establish a statutory right for the authority to seek their advice; consequently, the Court could not issue a mandamus to consider the representation, leading to dismissal of both the main PIL and a connected matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and PIL dismissed; no order as to costs.

Sri D.Prabhu Kishore, Vs The Government of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.175 of 2014

¶4

DATED:14.07.2014

¶5

Between: Sri D. Prabhu Kishore, Nellore District and others.

¶6

… Petitioners And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶11

Public Interest Litigation No.175 of 2014

¶12

Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶13

The petitioners assail the action of the respondentauthorities in not considering the application dated 6.11.2013 submitted by them for providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated systems to protect the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the light of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They seek a consequential direction to the respondentauthorities to consider the said representation in the interest of the welfare of the travelling public.

¶14

In the body of the affidavit, the petitioners raised a grievance with regard to collection of toll plaza fee and bus stand development fee from the bus passengers. Admittedly, the collection of these fees is governed by the orders issued by the State Government. However, no challenge is made to the said Government orders. That apart, the petitioners do not explain how the respondent-authorities are under an obligation to consider their advice for improving the operational systems of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. In the absence of such a right, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider or act upon the representation

¶15

made by the petitioners.

¶16

The Public Interest Litigation is therefore mis-conceived and is accordingly dismissed. P.I.L.M.P. No. 254 of 2014 is also dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

__________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶18

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 14^th July, 2014 pnb

Sri D.Prabhu Kishore, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D.Prabhu Kishore, v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasamsetti Rama Krishna Rao, Vs The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary

Motupalli Kamakshi Kanaka Durga, Vs Government of A.P.

Barre Nehru, S/o. Narsimha Swamy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Narayan Rao S/o. Venkaiah Vs The Government of Telangana Rep. by

Animal Rescue Organization Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

C. Sai Sai Vishnuvardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. S.Malla Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue