In a PIL challenging the alleged illegal shifting of a sand ramp, the court found that the respondent had categorically denied any such proposal. No further proceedings were required.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PIL No. 190 OF 2015
17-08-2015
Between:
V. Krishna Murthy and two others
… Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PIL No. 190 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners, in the instant public interest litigation (PIL) seek the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in shifting of Yenuguvarilanka sand reach/ramp sale point to Narsapur village, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of terms and conditions of environmental clearance proceedings No.SEIAA/AP/W.G-45/2014, dated 01-11-2014 and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 to 6 to continue Yenuguvanilanka sand ramp sale point as it is in the said reach without any changes and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 4 thereof has categorically stated that there is no proposal for shifting of the present running sand reach of Yenuguvanilanka.
In view thereof, nothing further survives in the PIL. PIL is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh PIL, if the circumstances so demand.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ S.V. BHATT, J 17-08-2015 ks
V. Krishna Murthy
R.K. Reddy
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
