Dismissed

N. Dolendra Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2022PIL/365/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a PIL seeking to quash the State of Telangana's termination of contracts for the Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond Sujala Sravanthi Project due to alleged illegality and violation of natural justice. The Court noted the project lacked necessary Central Government approvals, citing the Union of India's reply, and declined to pass further orders, dismissing the litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed without further orders, with no order as to costs.

N. Dolendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

pleuc TNTEREST LtlcATtoN No: 365 oF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

N.Dolendra Prasad, S/o.N.V.S.Ra9havaiah, aged 57 years, Occ : Editor and Publisher, R/o. Flat No.101, Sairam Residency, Road No.40, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Hydera6ad.

¶13

3 The Union of lndia, rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶14

4 The Cenkal Water Commission, Rep by its Chairman, Seva Bhavan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.

¶15

5 Ihe Chief Engineer, lrrigation Projects, al Khammam, Telangana.

¶16

¶17

6 The Executive Engineer, N.S.C. Division, Miryalaguda.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Arlicle 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, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A. Declaring the action of the lstRespondent State in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.3O dated 8-10-2014 terminating the Jyothi Rao Pule Dummugudem Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond Sujala Sravanthi Project, as being illegal, arbitrary, uncbnstitutional, against Principles of Natural Justice, in violation of provisions of the A.P. Reorganisation Acl,2014, and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and B. The consequential actions of the 1sr Respondent state in directing the Sth Respondent herein to terminate 10 packages assigned to various companies for construction of the said Project as illegal and arbitrary, and C. The Action of the 6th Respondent in issuing termination letter dated 09-04-2014 to the 10 agencies as illegal, arbitrary ahd against principles of natural^justice D. And quash the impugned GO Ms.No.30 dated 8-10-2014 with a

¶20

direction to the 1:'1 espondent to re notify the tenders and imE le:ment the project as envisaged in^(lO ll4 s |..1o.22, cated 6-2-2009.

¶21

Counsel for the Pe itioner : SR/.D. SEIHU RAMI REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the l?e;pondent Nos.l, 2, 5 & 6 : GP FOR lRRl & t)l.tMltl AREA DEV Counsel for the l7e;pondent Nos.3&4:SRI.NAMAVARAPU RA Jt'St4,AR RAO

¶23

The Court made th,, following ORDER

¶24

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE AB HINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI PUBLIC INTERESTLITIGAITO N No.365() F 2015

¶27

. QBQE!, ,-u. u, e tk)n,bt. the ctupJJushce satishchondla shamel

¶28

The present public intcl.est litigation has been 1lled b,v the petitioner, who is an Editor and publisher of Zamin Ryot Telugu Weekly and who is interested in the welfare of residents of Andhra Pradesh, being aggrieved by G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 08.10.2014 issued by rhe respondent No.l/State of Telangana terminating the contracts awarcled to various private companies in respect of Jyothirao pule Dummugudem Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond Sujala Sravanthi project (for short "the Project"). The petitioner's contention is that the project was in fact conceptualised for betterment of farmers in order to ensure that un-irrigated land is provided with surprus flood water as welr as water from the dams/ reservoirs. However, the State Government with an oblique and uiterior object has scrapped the Project and has cancelled the contract awarded to various prlvate contractors.

¶29

The Governmcnt of India has filed a detailed reply and Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has vehemently argued before this Court that

¶30

( I

¶31

uncLer thc Il:r b o1' publi,: ir-rtcrr-:st litigirtion, tI.rt' t:-rrinirrion ol packaqes allt rt,:d to 1c11 agct'rcie s / co mpa nic s is tl,rc subjcct mat.te r ol tlrc i)rescnt prrblic intcrest Iitigatron Ia n ls alijo been brougl-rt Io -lt, rLolice of this Court that thc pr,Ic,;t lr..s not bccn accorclec ter:1- rto-e corrontic appro,,al bv lhc A<lvrsoq, .lornmitl_ee of thc Mir-ris;tl of Walcr Resources, Rivcr Dcvr iopm,:rrt & Cianga Rejuvcnaticn, zrs thc cletailcd lrrojcct rcpor.t has r.rct been submitted b,. the Stale Grtvcrnmenr tc rlerlt.-.il Water Cornmissior.t bt' zrpprovitl. I1 has also beel stlttr:,.1 ttat 1l-re Project docl; r o1 have approval, $'l-rich is man(lat,)ry ,i) crrny ()ut such a Ploj,'ct and the Stzrte Governme.tt $,irs irrformed accordingly.

¶32

ln thr: c trLsidert:d opinion of this Court, as ttrr. ))ro.ject u,as not having nc:essary approvals by thc Govcrnrrl(:ltl ol lndia, the Project rvas leleted from thc approval list of Ocn lra. Water Cornmissio:r. Hor.rrever, the Government of Itrdirr t:rr; obsen,ecl that water:s r State subject and any der.eloprnent (,1' thc project can take plac.l after followrng due process of La,,r-. f I ert:fore, in the light of th: r'eply filecl by thrr Governmer.rt c,l Ltdia, no further orders are re luired to be passcd in the prcscnt Jnrl: lic interest litigation.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Resultantll,, the public intcrest litigation stands

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

Pending mist:ell:rne or_rs applications, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed. There shall be no orclcr as Lo costs.

¶39

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶40

NOTE: That the description of the case type read at 1'' page and docket sheet of the order datd 22.02.2022 in PIL No.365 of 2015 are corrected and substituted Suo Motu. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 24.O3.2022.

¶41

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6D SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

1 Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl & COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

1. One CC to SRI.D.SETHU RA[,tl REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to SRI.NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARA RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies 5. One spare copy SA

)

HIGH COUR r

DATED:2210212022

AMENDED CIRDER

/'
/
//;
ifl'jI, --- 1l ii I'lr ?t!.1
t:

¶54

P.l.L.No.365 of 2015

¶55

DISMISSING OF THE P.I.L

¶56

WITHOUT CI)STS.

¶57

@c4,4 ctrr)o

¶58

<\epa

N. Dolendra Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Dolendra Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mohammed Haji, Vs Broadcasting Corporation Of India

Nature Park Walkers Asociation, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Forest Dept., Hyd and 2 Ot

Vaddadi Murali, Vs Union of India rep by its the Secretary

News Item of Various News Paper Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Fedration of Association of Colonies and Apartments, Hyd Vs Cheif Secy, Govt of Ap, Hyd and 2 Ot

Vodyarapu Ravi Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The President, Itmd (Its Time to Make a Difference), Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

All India B.C. Obc Party Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D. Ashok Kumar Vs The New And Renewable Energy Development Corporation Limited

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited, rep.by its Vs Y.Dayanand

M.Vijaya Kumar Vs Gundlapally Sreenu

P. Raja Vikram Reddy , P.R. Vikram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ahmed Moinuddin Jaffer, And 3 Others Vs The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, And Another

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah Vs Apsrtc., rep by Managing Director