Disposed

J.Bala Naveena, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Jun 2015PIL/83/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, directions were issued to the respondent secretary to consider the petitioners' representation within four months if a new copy is furnished. The bench disposed of the petition without considering the merits of the underlying case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to furnish another copy of representation within two weeks; Respondent directed to consider and decide on merits within four months.

J.Bala Naveena, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.83 of 2015

¶4

DATED:15.06.2015

¶5

Between: J. Bala Naveena, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and another.

¶6

… Petitioners And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶10

Public Interest Litigation No.83 of 2015

¶11

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

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 2^nd respondent to consider and decide their representation dated 9.10.2013 within time frame.

¶14

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the representation, which was furnished by the petitioners in the year 2013 is not traceable in their office.

¶15

In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall furnish another copy of their representation within a period of ten days from today.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following orders would meet the ends of justice.

¶17

“The petitioners are allowed to furnish another copy of the representation dated 9.10.2013 to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.2, after having received the representation, shall consider and decide the same on merits

¶18

and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation. All contentions of the parties are kept open. It is made clear that we have not considered merits of the case.

¶19

With these observations, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶20

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions also stand closed.

¶21

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶22

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 15^th June, 2015 Pnb

J.Bala Naveena, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Bala Naveena, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Abdul Raoof, Vs The State of Telangana

R.S.Rama Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

K.Raveendra Reddy, Vs The Government of A.P.

Gulam Rabbani Vs State of Telangana

Vemareddy Sarath Kumar Reddy, Vs Union of India

K.Raveendra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhuma Venkata Nagi Reddy, S/o. Bali Reddy, Vs The Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal

Baddula Venkata Ramaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Vs Secretary General

Smt. Kaniganti Hamsaveni, Vs The Union of India, Represented by its Joint Secretary

Onamala Galaiah, S/o.O.Masamaiah Vs The Union of India

P. Lakshmi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pala Pashupathinath , Vs Government of Telangana