High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad allowed a Public Interest Litigation to be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the respondents for redressal within a specified time frame.
PIL disposed of on petitioner's application to withdraw with liberty for separate representations.
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.84 of 2015
Date: 4.7.2016
Between: Mr. V.L. Jayaprada Devi, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Commerce, New Delhi and others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
Public Interest Litigation No.84 of 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1; Mr. Moola Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for General Administration for respondent No.2; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 9 and Mr. D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.11.
Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the instant P.I.L. with liberty to her to make separate representations to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for redressal of her grievance, keeping all contentions in the P.I.L. open, to be considered by these authorities, within time frame. He submits, as a matter of fact, some representations were made earlier also, but they were never considered by these respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not have any objection for allowing the petitioner to make
representations, as aforementioned, and for issuing directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the same within time frame.
We are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice.
“Petitioner is allowed to make representations to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within two weeks from today. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representations, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within twelve weeks from the date of its presentation. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to communicate this order to these respondents within a period of two weeks from today. All contentions of the parties are kept open.”
While granting liberty, we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
The costs deposited by the petitioner to show her bona fides, in pursuance of the order dated 28.3.2016, is allowed to be withdrawn.
The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ
____________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 4th July, 2016
pnb
Mr. V.L. Jayaprada Devi
Union of India
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
