Remanded

Pothani Purushotham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Feb 2015PIL/22/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged a resolution to remove toilets and rebuild them elsewhere via PPP under a Public Private Partnership model. The court held that the matter concerns viability rather than patently illegal nature. It directed the Government to exercise suo motu review power under Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government to consider the writ petition as sufficient material for suo motu review under Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 within six weeks.

Pothani Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

¶3

AND

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 22 OF 2015

¶6

DATE: 16.02.2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pothani Purushotham & others.

¶9

… Petitioners

¶10

And

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 22 of 2015

¶16

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

¶17

This writ petition has been filed questioning the resolution being No.56 dated 05.09.2014 passed by the 3^rd respondent – Nagara Panchayat Peddapally. By this resolution the 3^rd respondent has decided to remove existing dilapidated public toilets to rebuild the same at different place by Public Private Partnership.

¶18

The petitioners have stated that the proposed resolution intending to construct new toilets at a place is neither practically convenient nor commercially viable. In our view, this matter cannot be gone into by this Court, unless it is shown to us that the aforesaid resolution is patently illegal. No illegality has been raised. The petitioners have merely questioned the viability of the same.

¶19

According to us, it can only be reviewed by the Government and the Government alone under Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and such power of review can be exercised by the Government suo motu or on an application of the Member, Chairperson of the Nagara Panchayat concerned or the Commissioner. Neither of them has approached nor the petitioners have taken steps for review. According to us, a member of the public has no locus to make

¶20

an application for review under the aforesaid provision of law.

¶21

Under these circumstances, we direct the Government to consider the present writ petition being sufficient material to take action for review suo motu or not. If it is deemed fit and proper to take action suo motu on this material, such action may be taken within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. However, in the opinion of the Government, if such review is not called for in such a case decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within fortnight from the date of communication of this order.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of on the above terms. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶24

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶25

Date: 16.02.2015 ES

Pothani Purushotham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothani Purushotham v. The State of Telangana

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

Captain Ikram a Kaleem Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Addanki Raja, Vs The State of telangana

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes Party Vs The Chief Secretary

R. Mahesh Reddy Vs Union of India

Katam Praveen Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Parayana Mandali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

P.Lakshmi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

M.Salahuddin Ayub S/o Sadiq Zaheeruddin, Vs The Government of Telangana