Manimala Debbarma v. Block Development Officer, Hezamara, R.D. Block and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court closed the PIL upon the State's assurance that it would complete the executed work before the expiry of the current financial year.
What did the court decide?
Direction to State to complete the work before the expiry of the current financial year.
What the court decided
WP(C)(PIL) NO.02/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. M. Debbarma, Advocate, Mr. K.D. Jamatia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate.
30.08.2017.
Heard Mr. M. Debbarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned State Counsel.
Drawing our attention to the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, the learned counsel for the State submits that since the State is completing the execution of the rest of the work during the current financial year 20172018, the PIL does not survive for consideration.
We have carefully gone through the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit and the State has apparently taken serious step for redressing the grievance of the petitioner.
Under the circumstances, this PIL is closed by directing the State-respondents to complete the work before the expiry of the current financial year.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the public interest litigation survives given that the State claims to be completing the execution of work within the current financial year.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
State
Coram
T. Vaiphei
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Tripura HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP(C)(PIL)/2/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court