The High Court dismissed a PIL regarding the non-consideration of a representation. The bench held there is no statutory duty to consider every representation absent a specific obligation, and thus dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.
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
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 97 OF 2015
DATED:13.04.2015
Between:
K.Rajeshwar Reddy.
…Petitioner.
And
The State of Telangana, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director and others.
… Respondents.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.97 OF 2015
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the action of the
1st respondent in not considering and disposing of the representation made by the writ petitioner in connection with the alleged illegality of granting land of erstwhile Gandhi Medical College to the 2nd respondent.
According to us, there is no law under which any representation or every representation has to be considered. When it is found that the Officer or Authority concerned is enjoined with an obligation under the statute to consider and dispose of, and if this duty is not performed, a writ of mandamus can be issued against the officer concerned. Nothing has been shown before us under what provision of law this sort of representation is not considered.
For example, if any First Information Report is registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, obviously, it is the duty of the police officer to take action, and if action is not taken, the same can be complained to the Court of law, and then it is a fit case to direct the police to discharge their duty. This sort of commission is not found in this case.
On this ground alone, we dismiss the writ petition.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
SANJAY KUMAR, J
13.04.2015
GJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus for failure to consider a representation.
K.Rajeshwar Reddy
The State of Telangana
Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department
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
