Disposed

Rama Melkote v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Jan 2022PIL/36/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenges the State of Andhra Pradesh for non-implementation of the ICDS Scheme contrary to Supreme Court orders. The High Court directed the respondents to ensure compliance with Supreme Court orders within two months without delving into merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to ensure compliance with Supreme Court orders in P.U.C.L. vs. UOI within two months.

Rama Melkote Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

PIL NO: 36 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rama Melkote, W/o Shankar Narayan l,4elkote aged about 72 yearc Occ: Retd Professor- Osmania University R/o B-156, Sainikpuri, Secu nderabad-500094.

¶10

Sajaya. K,, W/o Ramesh Babu.V aged about 47 years Occ: Journalist F/o 1-31831401701501 Chandra Appt. St#g, SBI Colony, Bakaram, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad-500080

¶11

Jhansi Geddam,, N/.A., LLM. Wio A.Subrahmanyan aged about 46 years Occu:Convenor -Dalit Stree Shakti, 1st Floor, SRT-95, street No-3, Jawahar nagar, near Ashok Nagar Cross Road., Hyd erabad-500020

¶12

Prof . lr/adhavi,, W/o P.Sheshagiri Rao Aged about 58 years City convenor, Human Rights Forum, Hyderabad 2-2-1137181414, lndira Nilayam, New Nallakunta' Hydera bad-500044

¶13

...pETrroNERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary Secretariat, Secretariat building, Hyderabad Commissioner

¶16

Oepartment of Women Development and Child Welfare, Represented by its Director 8-3-222, Near Saradhi Studio, Vengalrao Nagar Hyderabad - 500038

¶17

Commissioner lntegrated Child Development Scheme, Women Development and Child Welfare B-3-222, Near Saradhi Studio, Vengalrao Nagar Hyderabad - 500038

¶18

4 Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Represented by its Principal Secretary 5 Department of Rural Development, Represented by its Principal Secretary

¶19

6 IVlanaging Director [vl/s AP Foods, (A Government of AP Enterprise) lDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad

¶20

7 Chief Executive Officer, Naandi Foundation 502, Trendset Towers, Road No 2 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034 Andhra Pradesh, India

¶21

...RES'.NDENTS

¶22

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring lhat action of the respondent in not implementing the ICDS Scheme in consonance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and declare their failure as illegal, arbitrary, also violation of articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia. And consequently direct the respondents to;

¶23

(i) Ensure absolute compliance of the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.196 ol 2001 and it's various lnterlocutory Applications specially Orders dated 29.O4.2004.

¶24

(ii) Appoint a commissioner by this Hon'ble Court at the State level and also appoint district level advisors to the Commissioner for the monitoring of implementation of various schemes.

¶25

(iii) To enhance allocations and earmark fully to meet the cost of ICDS schemes so that all the poor and marginalized children in the state suffering hunger or malnutrition are adequately provided for in terms of quantity and quality.

¶26

(iv) To^{ensure that l1ere is no delayof funds/ disbursements allocatedunder} any of^{the schemes;execu ion of any work; delayor shortfall in lifting the allotted food} n'u'nt',r, To take^{every st( p to redesignthe lcDSfor.its} "-":T::t^":":'::" (vi) That^{the centr' lized supply of food should be stopped and so alsothe} supply^{of pre-cooked'rea ly to eat food (Rava' Kurkure' biscuits' etc) to Anganwadi} withimmediateeffectsotr,ttn"nutritionalstandardofabalanceddietismaintained.(vii) That^{the numbrr of Anganwadis should be increased and that they should} beestablishedinplaceswhichhavebetterconditionsforthephysicalandmental develoPment^{of children'children'}

¶27

develoPment^{of children'children'} , must^{be provided withnecessaryfacilities (clean drinking} (viii) That^{all AWC} basic^{furniture, cooking utensils' weighing scales'medical} water, storage^facilities' ey^{performtheirrequisitefunctions'} kits, charts,^{etc) so that tl} ; must^{provide proper kitchens'toilets'rooms for preschool} (ix) The^authoritie ng material'^{playing area and toys' etc'} which^{should have teach} ressal mechanism^{must be instituted and accountabilityof} (x) Grievance^rec nentation^{of ICDS must be ensured} those^{in chargeof imPle}

¶28

l.A. NO:1^oF2013PILI 'ftiftftBffi'"*s^{that in the circumstances stated in the} Peti tron^underSe affidavit^{filed in suPPor} ofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleaseddirectthe plying Pre^{cookedfood in the form of Rava' Biscuitsetc" and} respondents^{to stop sul} neals by^{local communities for children under 6 years of age'} ensure^{freshlY cooked} at Anganwadis^{by direct the District Collectors to arrangefor} and other^{beneficiaries} cooked^{food' pendingdisposal of the mainwrit petition} the locally Procured^an Counsel^{for the Petiticners: SRI M' A' SHAKEEL}

¶29

Counsel^{for Respondr nt No' 1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION} GP FOR^{WOMEN DEVELOPMENT&} Counsel^{for ResPond} 'nt^{Nos' 2 & 3} CHILD^WELFARE

¶30

Counsel^{for Respond rnt No' 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES} counserfor^{Responc:ntNo' 5:} RtrIlIiA)=ttH",#,J?^'

¶31

The Court^{made the ollowing:ORDER}

¶32

THE HON'BI{^{E THECHIEFJUSTICE} H CHAND RA AND THE HON ,BLE SRI JUSTICE AND

¶33

PUBLIC^IN TEREST^LITIGA TION^No.36of 2()13

¶34

ORDER: Per^{tb"e Hon'bletheChielJusriceSatishchandrosho.flnal}

¶35

The^{present public interest litigation has been filed by} the^{petitioners stating that in the State of Telanganathe State} Government^{is not implementing the ICDA Scheme keeping in} view the^{judgmentdelivered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in} the case^{ol People's Union for Civll Liberties vs' Union of} India and^othersr'

¶36

Learned^{counsel has drawn the attention of this Court} towards^{the various orderspassedfrom time to time and was} fair enough^{in statingbefore this Court that the State be} directed^{to comply with the directions given by the Hon'ble} Supreme^{Court in the matter from time to time'}

¶37

Learned^{counsel for the State Governmenthas assured} this Court^{that they will be following the directions issued by} the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in the matter'}

¶38

Resultantly,^{withoutaverting to the merits of the case'} the respondent/^{State Government is directedto ensurethat} the directions^{issued by the HonbleSupremeCourt in the} CASC of People's^{Union for Civil Liberties(suPra), if the} will be^followed same^{has not beencomPliedl"'ith so} far, positiveiy^{withina period of two months from today}

¶39

'^{w.P.(c).No.196 of 20ol'dt22042009}

¶40

¶41

witl the^{aforesaid, the public interest litigation stands}

¶42

disposed^lf.

¶43

if anY,^{sha-11 stand closed'} Mis :ellaleous Petitions'

¶44

There^{sh d1 be no order as to costs'}

¶45

SD/. V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

lm$ffififfi**

Two^{CDC tPies}

¶51

One^{SPare t-oPY}

MBcrX

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310112022

1 r"r- Si A?A-
j
_.)
iJ 01rEl20?2
u,u

¶57

ORDER

¶58

PlL.No.36 of 20'13

¶59

DrsPosrNG oF THE WP(PlL)

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

/'l---
flJ/Y
t)4
XU

Rama Melkote v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Melkote v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Vs Honble Sri Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu

Telangana Sc and St Parents Association of Hyderabad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiluka Chandrasekhar Vs The Commissioner of Police

Primary Fishermen Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Capt.J.Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jammi Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Deeravath Redya Naik Vs The District Collector

A. Bixam S/o Papaiah Vs The Union of India

Capt.B.Francis D.Raj (Retd) Vs Oic, Eme Records

P.V. Krishnaiah Vs Union of India, rep. by its Cabinet Secretary

P Narender Reddy Vs the State of Ts., Rep by Its Chief Secretary and 4 Others

Bondili Nagadhar Singh Vs the Secretary