This PIL was dismissed as general in nature. The court held that prayers seeking broad directions to establish schools, health centres, and addiction centres, while challenging event management expenses, are inappropriate for PIL and thus cannot be entertained.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Public Interest Litigation No. 309 of 2015
Date:18.1.2016
Between: Y. Sambasiva Rao, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.
….Petitioner
And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Public Interest Litigation No. 309 of 2015
PC:(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner in the instant petition seeks the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking steps for strengthening/updating the present schools and Health Centres being run by the Government and not establishing D-addition centres in 29 villages of Rajadhani Area till the development takes place and on the other hand spending huge amounts to Rajadhani Foundation Stone and paying money to the event management is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice and equity and consequently direct the respondents to establish Hospitals, Educational Institutions other than skill development and D- Addiction centre immediately, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case.”
From bare perusal of the prayer made in the petition, it is clear that it is general in nature, and such prayer, in our opinion, in the Public Interest Litigation, cannot be entertained.
Hence, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand
closed.
____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
_________________ S.V. BHATT, J
18th January, 2016 Pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a general prayer in a Public Interest Litigation regarding funding and establishment of schools, health centres and addiction centres can be entertained.
Whether the expenditure on foundation stones and event management is arbitrary and illegal.
Y. Sambasiva Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S.V. BHATT
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
