Disposed

Mr.G.v.Sri Raja, S/o Mr.G.v.Harsha Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Aug 2015PIL/201/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the inaction regarding the provision of a Christian burial ground, claiming violation of constitutional rights. The Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's representation within three months and disposed of the PIL.

What did the court decide?

Directing the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's representation within three months.

Mr.G.v.Sri Raja, S/o Mr.G.v.Harsha… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.201 of 2015

¶4

Between: Mr. G.V. Sri Raj, Rajahmundry.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 3.8.2015

¶9

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶10

Public Interest Litigation No.201 of 2015

¶11

PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶12

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has made the following

¶13

prayer:

¶14

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in providing the 30 acres of Christian burial ground for disposal of the dead as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the Respondents to allot suitable land for Christian burial ground for disposal of the dead in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and G.O. Ms. No. 1235, dated 25.10.2008 issued by the Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, Government of erstwhile united State of Andhra Pradesh and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶15

Mr. D. Narendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if his representation dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure-P1), is considered by the concerned authority in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 1235, dated 25.10.2008.

¶16

We have perused the representation and G.O. Ms. No.1235, dated 25.10.2008.

¶17

Having considered the same, we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:

¶18

“The concerned authority shall consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.7.2015, in the light of G.O. Ms. No.1235, dated 25.10.2008, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the petitioner to make similar representation to the District Collector, if he so desires, and if any such representation is made, the District Collector shall consider the same in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 1235, dated 25.10.2008, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.”

¶19

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.

¶20

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 3^rd August, 2015 Pnb

Mr.G.v.Sri Raja, S/o Mr.G.v.Harsha Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.v.Sri Raja, S/o Mr.G.v.Harsha Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

B. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Chilka Chandra Shekar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Muneendra Reddy, S/o.N.Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Thirumala Devi, Vs The State of A.P.

P. Devendra Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary

Sri S.Venu Vs The State of Telangana

Forum for Good Governance, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

Sri Ramalingeswara large Sized Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Smt. v. Rani, Vs The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment

Vijayawada Hotel Owners Association, Vs The Chief Medical Health Officer

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Employees Union [Regd.No Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatn

Karise Jhansi Rani, W/o.Ananda Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal Secretary

K.Venugopal S/o.Kishan Vs The State of Telangana,Home Department

Lella Sri Lakshmi, Vs The State