COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE…
Public interest litigation dismissed in terms of judgment in W.P.No.13454 of 2015.
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
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 221 OF 2015
Date: 07.09.2015
Between:
B.C. Velama Samkshema Sangam Rep., by its President, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Backward Class Welfare Department, Hyderabad & another.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 221 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question raised in the instant public interest litigation is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, dated 04.09.2015, passed in a batch of writ petitions bearing W.P.No.13454 of 2015 and batch and the public interest litigation may be dismissed in terms of the said judgment. Learned Government Pleader also joins him in making such a request.
Public interest litigation is dismissed in terms of the judgment, dated 04.09.2015, passed in W.P.No.13454 of 2015 and batch.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ S.V. BHATT, J
Date: 07.09.2015 ES
B.C. Velama Samkshema Sangam Rep. by its President, Hyderabad
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Backward Class Welfare Department, Hyderabad
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
