This is a single-line dismissal order where the High Court rejected the writ petition because the petitioner offered no explanation for the delay in filing, despite the order impugned being from 2011.
Discharge of the writ petition and dismissal of pending miscellaneous petitions.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 80 OF 2015
DATE: 13.04.2015
Between:
K. Chidambaram
… Petitioner
And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 80 of 2015
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
In this matter there is simply no explanation as to why order dated 11.08.2011 is sought to be impugned on 17.03.2015.
On that ground alone the writ petition is dismissed. However liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if there has been in real sense any explanation.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 13.04.2015
ES
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition impugning an order dated 11.08.2011, filed without any explanation, deserves to be allowed.
Whether liberty to file a fresh writ petition should be granted if an explanation exists.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Chidambaram
State of Telangana
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
SANJAY KUMAR
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
