Dismissed

M. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC23 Mar 2015PIL/67/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dismissed a PIL filed by M. Narsing Rao seeking directions to appoint an Executive Officer, initiate penal proceedings, remove encroachments, and disqualify a trustee in a temple. Held, the writ petition is unmanageable due to multiple causes of action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with pending miscellaneous petitions also dismissed. No order as to costs.

M. Narsing Rao Vs State of Telangana, Rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.67 OF 2015

¶8

DATED:23.3.2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. Narsing Rao … Petitioner

¶11

And

¶12

State of Telangana

¶13

Rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶14

Endowments Department

¶15

Secretariat

¶16

Hyderabad

¶17

and others … Respondents

¶18

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶21

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.67 OF 2015

¶22

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

¶23

This writ petition has been filed asking for a relief for a direction to respondent No.2 to appoint an Executive Officer to Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, as per the recommendations of respondent No.3. Second relief sought

¶24

is for a direction to respondent Nos.3 to 8 for taking steps to initiate penal proceedings as per the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 against respondent Nos.4 to 8 informing the offences to the officer in-charge of the local Police Station, i.e., Kulsumpura. Third relief sought is for a direction to respondent Nos.3 to 8 to take steps as per Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) to remove the encroachments from the temple land. Fourth relief sought is for a direction to the respondents to remove or dismiss the founder trusteeship of respondent No.4 by framing charges against him under Section 28 of the Act for being disqualified as Trustee under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and failure to perform his duties as stipulated under Section 24 of the Act.

¶25

We are at a loss to see the nature of the relief asked for as there is joinder of several causes of action in one writ petition which is impossible for this Court to decide. We therefore dismiss the writ petition.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶27

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶28

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶29

23.3.2015

¶30

bnr

M. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Citizens Legal Aid Society, Vs The Union of India

Inapurapu Suryanarayana, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its secretary

Madiga Hakkula Porata Sena, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.C. Penchalaiah S/o Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Swamy Srinivasanda Yogi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

K. v. Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. S. Venu Gopala Chary Vs The Union of India