Public Interest Litigation regarding a cell tower erected in premises is disposed of as withdrawn by the petitioner who sought liberty to file a representation to the concerned authority for removal of the tower.
Public Interest Litigation disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a representation for removal of the cell tower.
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. 172 OF 2015
Date: 28.09.2015
Between:
G. Mallesh Yadav
… Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 172 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authority seeking removal of cell tower erected in the premises as mentioned in the prayer clause.
Public interest litigation is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. If the petitioner makes a representation, as afore-mentioned, we hope and trust that the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are kept open.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
S.V. BHATT, J
Date: 28.09.2015
ES
G. Mallesh Yadav
The State of Telangana
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
