PIL filed in 2014 seeking constitution of Fast Track Courts for rape cases under Nirbhaya Act was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner, who stated that such courts have already been constituted in the State of Telangana.
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 STATE OF TELANGANA: ATHYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESATISH CHANDRASHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONNO:305OF 20'14
Between:
T.Dhangopal Rao, S/o.T.Y.RaoHindu,Age 43-years, Occ Human Rights Defend6r R/o.H. No.20-1-696,Shivnagar,Post BahadurpuraHyderabad District
...PETITIONER
AND
(R4 suo motu impleaded asper court orderdated10-06-2015 in PIL)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ofconstitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe Affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may; be pleased to issue a writ order or direction,more particularlyone in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaringthe Act of the Respondents 2 to 3 in not setting up of Fast Track courts fortrying cases underNirbhayaAct and also for not acting upon the Representationsent by this Petitioner on 21-10-2014 by Speed Post as illegal, arbitrary and void;Directthe RespondentNos.1to 3 to prepare modalities forletting up the Fast TrackCourts to try cases under the NirbhayaAct'
PILMP. NO : 453 OF 2014
Petition under Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High court may be pleasedto Grant lnterim Direction to 2nd and3rd Respondentsfor incorporating safetymeasures for short{erm andlong term, including installationmaintenance-continuous
monitoring of the closed circuit camera system, visible policing,;ncreasing checkposts in lT corridors, policing on ORR, barricading, and vehicle checking to instill confidence in women, pending setting up of the fast track courts.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.DHANGOPAL RAO, Party-in-person (Not Present)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N.RAJESHWAR RAO, Asst.Sol.General
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (TS)
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL. (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, SC FOR THC
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.3O5 OF 2014
ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satistl Chandra Shanna)
The present petition was filed in the year 2014 making a prayer to constitute Fast Track Courts to deal with the cases of rape victims.
Learned counsel was fair enough in stating before this Court that Special Fast Track Courts have been constitutedin the State of Telangana and therefore, thepetition has served its pLrrpose. He prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
Accordingly, the public interest litigation is dismissed as withdrawn.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
\
SD/-T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANTREGISTRAR q, //TRUE COPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To, 1. Two CCsto the Advocate General (TS)'HighCourt for the Stateof Telangana
,. lo*:'J",to the Advocate General (AP), High Court for the Stateof . Telanoana b;;'tc'i; bH [OUT]r.oHnr'rcoPAL RAo' Partvin-person (oPUC) 4 one CC toSRI N.RAJES"iwAilino' nttisol GeneraltoPUCl i. SllE 66i; 5Hi n.xnAr'rfriiurtrenn-eoov'AdvocatetoPUCl
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610312022
ORDER
1 v{e S'fA re:
e
1] JUt{ ?trfl J', tl
PlL.No.305 of 2014
DISMISSING THE PIL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
(. tvo
T. Dhangopal Rao
Union of India
State of Telangana
State of Andhra Pradesh
The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
Satish Chandrasharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
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
