The petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 179 of 2015 prayed for withdrawal of the petition. The High Court at Hyderabad dismissed the PIL as withdrawn and closed pending miscellaneous applications.
Withdrawal of the petition permitted; pending miscellaneous applications closed.
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
CASE No. Public Interest Litigation No. 179 of 2015
Between: Ravi Hemanth, Mopidevi, Krishna District. And
… Petitioner
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Hyderabad and another.
….Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.07.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgments? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Public Interest Litigation No. 179 of 2015
PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition.
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 20th July, 2015
Pnb
Ravi Hemanth, Mopidevi
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Hyderabad and another
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
