Dismissed

Bakka Judson S/o Bakka Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Feb 2015PIL/27/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the Court dismissed the challenge to the Government's decision to shift a TB and Chest Hospital from Hyderabad to Vikarabad, holding that no individual right was affected, though noting the government should consider the petitioner's suggestion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to make a suggestion in writing.

Bakka Judson S/o Bakka Devaiah Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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. 27 OF 2015

DATE: 16.02.2015

Between:

Bakka Judson

… Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, 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. 27 of 2015

¶16

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

¶17

This writ petition has been filed questioning the decision of the Government for shifting the T.B. and Chest Hospital, which is located in Hyderabad city to a place called T.B. Sanatorium, Anantagiri, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

It appears that at Vikarabad there is a T.B. Sanatorium. Steps are being taken now for improvement of the existing Sanatorium so that the present T.B. and Chest hospital at Erragadda, Hyderabad, may be shifted to that place. According to us, in the writ petition nothing has been shown as to how this Government decision is illegal and unconstitutional.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that even in an administrative decision, there must be a reason as to why such decision was taken.

¶20

We think that all administration decisions do not require reasons to be spelt out in the order itself, unless such decision affects any individual or group of individuals’ substantive right. Shifting of the existing T.B. and Chest hospital to another place does not affect any one’s right. May be, Doctors and staff may face some inconvenience. According to us, it is for the Government to consider the convenience

¶21

and inconvenience of the people at large. However, there is no harm for the Government to consider the petitioner’s suggestion.

¶22

Therefore, we close the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to make a suggestion in writing in this regard and the Government may look into the same in accordance with law.

¶23

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶24

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶25

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶26

Date: 16.02.2015 ES

Bakka Judson S/o Bakka Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakka Judson S/o Bakka Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

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