In a PIL regarding unauthorized cell tower construction on government land, the High Court disposed of the writ petition because the petitioner conceded that tower construction had been stopped after the Gram Panchayat's reply.
The writ petition publicly stands disposed of with 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 FOR THE SI rro;;,,,'6,IE,Pj lfihfli f,iliAr HYDERABAD
*'ff 3i"iJ,lill jf H,Bi[?'_?".cE]/BER
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF J^USTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA rHE HoNouRor,_. .*t?rrrcE N. TuKARAMJT
Between:
WRIT P ETIT IONER (PIL) NO: 15 oF 2019
R;Jfi^,IP"IlIElg,,j,:i: ),i:1'J:,14,:f,giil,is:fl,fi:::ij,',,":fl:id LB:..;;1 Emp,oyee
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the natureof writ of mandamus to d irecting:
ll2ll
lA NO:1 OF 2019
Petitionunder S rction'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled in su1 port of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto direct the Respondentsnot t ) permitthe 6th and 7th Respondentsto erect Cell towerin theGovernmentlandnSyNo58l'situatedatPudurvillage'tr/edchalMandal' Medchal(tr,4alkajgiri) D strict'pending disposalof the abovewrit petit on
Counsel forthe Petitir 'ner:SRI' POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY
Counselfor the Resp )ndent Nos'1to 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counselfor the Resp )ndent No 4: GP FOR P-ANC.HAYAT RAJ& RI'RAL liivlioprvtetliron rHE ADVocATEGENERAL
Counsel forthe ResP lndentNo'S:SRIG. NARENDERREDDY, SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT
Counselfor the Resp cndent Nos'6& 7: NONEAPPEARED
The Court madethe ' ollowing:ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESATISHc}IANDRA SHARIUA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI
lV.P( PILl,No.l5 of 2OL9
ORDER: Petthe H.nbtethechie! Justice satishchfuldru shama)
Learned counsel for thepetitionerhas fairly statedbefore this court that in thelight of the reply hled by the Gram Panchayat, as the constructionof tower has been stopped, no further orders are required tobe passedin the presentpetition.
In the light of the aforesaid, the writpetition(public interest
litigation stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneousapplications, ifany, shall stand
closed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
SD/-K.ONESIM
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION bY''"'*
To,
1 . Two CCs to the AdvocateGeneral, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT] 2. Tfio CCs to'GP f6r Revenue,HighCourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
, r( Sr[),h,.vPilU, A]vocJP(oro9 7.)ttecc h ,ripolli7o
HIGH COURT
DATED:091121:'.021
ORDER
W.P.(P|L).No. l5 of2019
L s
.l
a.):J.) 'l i) Dtc nF11(vl t
.,i
DtsPoslNG oF THE W.P.(PlL) WITHOUT C(ISTS
\o) )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether further orders are required regarding the construction of a cell tower on government land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Govt. Do Panchayat Wayside Vide
State of Telangana
District Collector Rv Mdchargiri
Tandial Revenue Officer
District Panchayat Officer
Puduru Village Grama Panchayat
Satish Chandra Sharma
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
