Dismissed

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes Party v. The Chief Secretary

Telangana HC9 Feb 2015PIL/19/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding the Kalyana Lakshmi Pathakam scheme, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for similar benefits for Backward Class and Other Backward Class communities, holding that no enforceable legal right exists absent a government decision to provide such benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate authority claiming similar right.

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 19 of 2015

¶4

Date: 09.02.2015

¶5

Between: All India B.C./OBC Party, Rep., by its President, T. Danaiah, Ranga Reddy District.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And State of Telangana, rep., by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad & others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 19 of 2015

¶11

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶12

It appears, bereft of all irrelevant facts stated in the writ petition, the sum and substance of the petitioner’s grievance is that by G.O.Ms.Nos.4 and 14 dated 25.09.2014 and 21.10.2014 respectively the Government of Telangana has taken a decision to provide financial assistance to the unmarried girls for their marriage introducing the scheme of Kalyana Lakshmi Pathakam.

¶13

In this writ petition the petitioner claims that similar benefit should also be given to the unmarried girls of the Backward Class or Other Backward Class communities. We are of the view that it is an absolutely a Government policy with regard to disbursing of the funds and formulating of any scheme for any particular community, until and unless the same appears to be unconstitutional on the face of it.

¶14

In this writ petition the petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid two Government orders. They want that similar benefit should be given to the aforesaid two classes of people. According to us, the petitioner must come to the Court with an enforceable legal right. With these Government orders the petitioner has no right for enforcement. Until and unless the Government decides to give any benefit to these classes of people and such benefit is not implemented, no legal action can be

¶15

taken.

¶16

We therefore dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority claiming similar right.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶18

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶20

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 09.02.2015 ES

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes Party v. The Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes Party v. The Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Mahesh Reddy Vs Union of India

K.Sagar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Chief Secretary

P.v.S.K.Chalcraverthy, Vs Union Government of India

Kare Rajeev, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothani Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana

K. Visweswara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Dayanand, Vs The Union of India

K. Yadhi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Revenue Department