Dismissed

Punreddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2015WP/23284/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a government contract for laying water pipelines, alleging irregularities and negligence by the executing agency. The Court held that the cause belongs to the public at large, not the petitioner personally, rendering the private writ petition non-maintainable without a certificate for PIL.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is declared non-maintainable and dismissed. No order as to costs.

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.23284 of 2015

¶4

Between : Punreddy Narender Reddy S/o.Late Mohan Reddy, Age 60 yrs, Occu : Agriculture, R/o.Chinthapally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. .. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 11.08.2015

¶5

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶7

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No may be allowed to see the Judgments ? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No marked to Law Reporters/Journals 3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.23284 of 2015

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that a contract was entrusted to 5^th respondent by the Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (4^th respondent), for laying water pipe line from Kodandapur Reservoir to Nasarlapally Pump House in Krishna Drinking Water supply, Phase-III, Package-I work. The petitioner alleges that the 5^th respondent is indulging in illegal activities and not providing good quality pipes and in future there is possibility of causing damage to these pipes and would be contrary to public interest. The petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent is hand in glove of the 5^th respondent and is not monitoring the nature of work undertaken by the 5^th respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

¶12

2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition do not disclose any personal injury suffered by the petitioner nor affecting his right in any manner directly. The cause espoused in the writ petition is in the form of an injury to the public at large. Thus, the cause in the writ petition is having larger public interest. In such matters a person who is seeking to espouse the cause, has to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Public Interest Litigation and not the writ petition as presented now.

¶13

3. Thus, the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as available in law and also to file Public Interest Litigation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶15

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 11^th August, 2015. Rds

Punreddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punreddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

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

Bagudu Murali, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.V. Chalapathi Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu Miya Vs The Proddatur Municipality

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Jupudy Venkata Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Mohan, Vs The State of Telangana