Dismissed¶43

P.L.N. Rao v. The Union of India

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025WP(PIL)/26/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court PIL dismissed for non-prosecution (11-03-2025); petitioner P.L.N. Rao (social worker) absent, no rejoinder filed; allegations of false and frivolous EIA reports to obtain environmental permissions, mandamus against Respondent Nos. 1-4 (Union of India, Ministry of Environment, National Accreditation/Quality Council of India) left unadjudicated; no costs; Articles 14, 15, 19, 21; interim prayer to cancel permissions of respondent No. 5; bench: Acting CJ Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara.

What did the court decide?

Neither the petitioner is any more interested to pursue the matter nor does any public interest survive, as no rejoinder has been filed despite the respondents' counter. ¶42

P.L.N. Rao Vs The Union of India — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

t,' a

¶2

l3/t46 l

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE ELEVENTHDAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶7

WRIT PETI^TI N PIL^{NO:,26 OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

. Social worker,

¶10

p.L.N. Rao, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, Aqed^{apqu!.sqyg?r!,} 9.c9 hl"'iin'g;ii-g;;.-Virrrg",^{cnortuppalfu andal, Yadqdri District'}

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of^{lndiq, Through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Climate} Fa'ryavar'an^{Bhawan'Jorbash Road'}

¶13

' cffi New #:b;;;;;ft^{Delhi - 110 003} ni "ii;;ia,In'oiii

¶14

The Unlon^{of lndia,} Through^{senior Director,.Natio.nalAccreditationQofl.or} " ilil;ti;;;a-fiaining t-"'o".iiirunr eoiio of Quatity council of.ln^dia),^lTPl

¶15

,Fxl'ilHkT;if.",;i+,.t,[f-sft^{:i&.5,F,"8nHt^?,tiiFi8oo,3?v} " e'i,i'iiirEiilnq ino ciiid,rl,qn-Li6i,iiio'i"s tNnal-) NAPL Houpe Plot No.

¶16

: : ffirr'rst$#siiffi+;+trl'm ;;'Ii^::i

¶17

"'RFSPoNDENTS

¶18

19^{issqe a Writ (PlL)} , or{qr^or dirgltion^{under the nature of Writ of} sf^{Responden[ No. 1-{ in non-g9nsideringthe} Manda;pus fqr^{thQ actien} represeRtatipn cheatinq anC^{illegal of} the^{activities petitioner of dated the Regpgndent Zg'122023 N9 a1d_i4 s' wlro non;cs":'tl_t} O:O\n ]lt 'u ,'nO deceivingtheGovernmentaswellasthepublicbypreparingfals.e4ndfrivolouE Environmentaf^{Impact flssessment (ElA) reports f9r getting gnvironmental} permissions for thg^{industriesfor theirselflsh monetarybenefits !s frighlyillegal'} arbitrary, unQonstitutional,^{unjust and in violation of principlesof Natural justice} and^{also in violatio4 bf Articles14, 15, 19 and21 of the aonstitution 9f lndia}

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstiances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to kindly direct the respondents and other authoritieg to CANCEL the permissions of respondent No. 5 until the disposal^pf this Writ Petition.

¶23

IA NO: oF2 23

¶24

FbtitiEn ;rndgr Section 191 QPq^praylng that in the circums{anqes stated in the affldavit tiled in suppgrt^qf the petitioq, the High Court may be plgased to receive the 4dditional 6slgrial of^pqstal regiqtgred post receipts dated Decembef 9,2022,^{at the SecunderabadPost} Qffice in W.P.^(PlL) No 28 of 2023.

¶25

Counse! for the Petltioner: SRI AN!ftQDH.N Counsel for thp Respondent [os.l TQ 3: $Rl B.MKHERJEE FOR SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAB, Dy. $QLIClToR GENERAL oF tND|A counsel for the Regpo4dent No.4; qBt_nt4FffJABu V|SHWANATHULA, sc gounsq!rorrf eRssponcpntttp.s;$E'rr:fr dqf.r"rBtlREDDY

¶26

The Cqurt rngqe tlle follqrying; OEqEI

¶27

¶28

, i

¶29

THE HON'BLE THE^{ACTINGCHIEF WSTICE SUJOY PAUL}

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A^YARA

¶32

WRIT PETITION IPILI No.26 of 2o23

¶33

ORDER:^(Per the Hon'ble^{the ActingChief Justice Sujog Paul)}

¶34

None for the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel^{representingSri Gadi} Praveen Kumar, learned^{Deputy SolicitorGeneral of India,for} respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Sri^{G-srinivas,learned counsel} representing Sri Ramesh^{Babu Vishwanathula,learned counsel} for respondent No.4; and^{Ms.ZainabKhan,learnedcounsel} representing Sri S.Nagesh^{Reddy, learned counselfor respondent} No.5.

¶37

Learned counsel for the^{respondentsinformed that the} counter has been hled.

¶38

No rejoinder has been^filed.

¶39

On previous date^{ofhearing, since nobodyentered} appea-rance for the^{petitioner, the matter was adj ournedfor today}

¶40

¶41

'\r

¶42

and was directr:rl to be listed under the head Tor dismissal,. It appears that rLeither the petitioner is any more int,erested to pursue the maLter nor any public interest survives because no rejoinder is hled.

¶43