The court dismissed the PIL for non-prosecution because the petitioner failed to deposit the security money directed in a previous order, despite seeking a reduction in the amount.
PIL dismissed for non-prosecution; miscellaneous petitions disposed of.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
P.I.L. No.52 of 2015
Dt:03.08.2015
Between:
P.Srinivasa Rao
… Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
P.I.L. 52 of 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard Mr.S.Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7, Mr.M.V.Venu, learned
counsel for respondent No.10 and Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12.
On last occasion (20.07.2015), we passed the following order:
“Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel submits that he has instructions to appear for respondent Nos.11 and 12. He seeks time to file counter affidavit. He submits that the petitioner has suppressed from the Court that earlier two PILs were filed challenging the very same de-notification and that between 2010 and 2015 several buildings have come up over the land in question and they are occupied by about 500 tenants/owners.
We asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner has stated so in the PIL and his answer was in the negative. In other words, petitioner has not stated in the PIL that after the questioned denotification, several buildings have been constructed over the property in dispute and hundreds of people have occupied the flats.
In view thereof, we grant adjournment as prayed on behalf of respondent Nos.11 and 12. In the meanwhile, we direct the petitioner, to show his bona fides, to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with the Registrar (Judicial) before the next date.”
Today, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as per the order, dated 20.07.2015, and he prayed for reducing the amount to some reasonable figure. We remember, even on last occasion, similar prayer was made and it was rejected.
We, therefore, asked learned Senior Counsel whether the petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount to show his bona fides as per the order, dated 20.07.2015. He once again requested to reduce the same. We assume that the petitioner is not prepared to deposit the amount as per the order, dated 20.07.2015. Hence, we are constrained to dismiss this PIL for non prosecution.
Order accordingly.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
S.V. BHATT, J
Dt:03.08.2015
kdl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the PIL in the absence of deposit of security money as directed.
Whether to reduce the amount of security money deposited to show bona fides.
P.Srinivasa Rao
The State of Telangana
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
