Disposed

O.Purushotham, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Nov 2015PIL/254/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL seeking directions to widen a rail under bridge for vehicular traffic and justify cost disparities. After recording the counter-affidavit providing for an alternative level crossing during construction, the Court found no further ground for the petition.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; the petition was disposed of as the respondents agreed to provide an alternative level crossing.

O.Purushotham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶4

AND

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 254 OF 2015

¶7

Date: 04.11.2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

O. Purushotham & others. And The State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others.

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶13

AND

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶15

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 254 OF 2015

¶16

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

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioners in the instant public interest litigation make the following prayers:

¶19

“(i) directing the respondents to take steps to widen the Rehamat Nagar Rail Under Bridge located at a distance of 200 metres from Ramnagar Railway Gate for vehicular traffic facilitating free traffic flow for light vehicles as well as ambulances with 50 feet width and approach roads on the west and east of the railway track before the closure of Ramnagar Railway Level Crossing Gate for construction purposes.

¶20

(ii) to direct the respondents to justify the proposal for construction of Rail Over Bridge (ROB) which is costing double the cost of Rail Under Bridge (RUB).”

¶21

Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that if the work of flyover starts at the place where the existing level crossing is there that will cause tremendous inconvenience to the people of Anantapur District.

¶22

Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 7 he stated thus:

¶23

“In reply to the averments in para Nos.18 and 19 of the affidavit, it is submitted that during the construction of R.O.B. at LC.No.127, arrangement will be made for passage of vehicles by shifting existing LC by 13.20 mts., towards Dharmavaram side and joining the road with approaches. Hence, the movement of vehicles will take place as usually even during the construction of R.O.B. and further usual the existing RUB No.75 will also be in operation for movement of traffic during closure of LC No.127.”

¶24

Having regard to the contents of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, Sri Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that let there be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to provide level crossing and then start the work of construction of flyover.

¶25

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the

¶26

3^rd respondent shall provide alternative level crossing well within time and shall see that no inconvenience is caused to the public.

¶27

We record the statements made on affidavits and accept them. In view thereof, nothing further survives in the petition.

¶28

Public interest litigation is disposed of.

¶29

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶30

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶31

S.V. BHATT, J

¶32

Date: 04.11.2015

¶33

O.Purushotham, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Purushotham, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaka Satyanarayana S/o Late Tataiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gareeb Guide (Voluntary Organization) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddygari Narsimha reddy, S/o. R. Mohan reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Ashfaq Ali Khan S/o Mir Akbar Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

J Ram Mohan Chowdhary, s/o J\J Chowdhary Vs The Union of India

Veldi Krishnaiah Vs State of Telangana

Telengana Praja Sankshema Sangham Vs Chief Secretary

Kancharla Seetharamreddy , Vs The State of Telangana

Yaka Satyanarayana S/o Late Tataiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Yakeen Vali Vs The State Transport Authority

D. Suresh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yaggati Rachappa, Vs M. Narsamma

Smt. Satti Venkamma W/o Abbireddi Vs The State of a.P., rep by Secretary

M. Narsamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh