Public Interest Litigation filed by T. Nageswar Rao challenging the installation of antennas by the State, claiming violation of Article 21. The petition was disposed of as not pressed after the respondent undertook not to renew the agreement on expiry.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 266 of 2014
Date: 20.06.2016
Between:
Sri T. Nageswar Rao & others.
… Petitioners
And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 266 of 2014
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners, in the instant petition, seek the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not removing the antennas as illegal and arbitrary and violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the five Heavy Weight Pole Mounted Antennas on the roof top of the 5th respondent residential house at Plot No.72, Survey No.74/12, Three Moorthy Co-operative Housing Society, East Maredpally, Secunderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.”
Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the agreement between the 5th respondent and the service providers is expiring in December, 2016. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that on expiry of the agreement period, respondent No.5 will not renew the agreement, since it is not in his interest and in the interest of his building, which has developed cracks. His statement is recorded and accepted.
In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. This, however, shall not preclude the petitioners and/or respondent No.5 to take appropriate remedy, if the circumstances so demand.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ
__________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 20.06.2016 ES
Sri T. Nageswar Rao & others
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad
Dilip B. Bhosale
P. Naveen Rao
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
