In PIL No. 146 of 2015, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice S.V. Bhatt disposed of the petition by directing the 7th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on unauthorized water filtration plants within 12 weeks, granting opportunity of hearing to affected parties.
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 AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 146 OF 2015
Date: 24.08.2015
Between:
Tinker Basheer Khan
… Petitioner
And The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 146 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner in the present public interest litigation seeks direction to respondent Nos.2 to 7 to take necessary steps/action for closing unauthorized water filtration plants and sell of drinking water in the Anantapur district.
Learned Advocate General invited our attention to G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 01.09.2005, to contend that the 7th respondent is the competent officer, who can take action or even grant permission for drawl of ground water for its filtration and sale.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the petitioner’s representation, dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P1), addressed to the 7th respondent and submitted that direction may be issued to the 7th respondent to consider the same.
We have perused the aforementioned Government order and the petitioner’s representation, dated 05.02.2014. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order:
“The 7th respondent shall consider and decide the petitioner’s representation, dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P1), as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order in the light of G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 01.09.2005. It is needless to mention that the 7th respondent shall grant an opportunity of being heard to all those persons, who are likely to be effected by his order. It is also open to the 7th respondent to grant permission for filtration and sell of drinking water, if the law so permits.” With these observations, the public interest litigation is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ S.V. BHATT, J
Date: 24.08.2015 ES
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 7th respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding unauthorized water filtration and sale of drinking water in Anantapur district.
Tinker Basheer Khan
State of A.P.
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S.V. BHATT
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
