Telangana High Court
WP(PIL)/161/2016 of LINGAM RAJAIAH Vs THE CHAIRMAN AND MD AND 11 OTHERS on 30 December 2021
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WP(PIL ) NO: 16't oF 2016 Between: Lingam Rajaiah,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WP(PIL ) NO: 16't oF 2016
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe constrtution of lndia praying that for thereasons stated in the letter sent by the petitioner herein, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly in the nature of writ ofMandamus, to call for the records and remarks from the respondents herein relatingto the inaction of the respondents in negligenfly repairing the canal (L6) of sRSp,instead of rebuilding it in the area of Ramgiri Mandal of peddapalli district and due tothat the farmers and farm labourers of the villages of Rajapur, Laddhnapur,Akkapaelli, Vaddiyala are suffering for drinking water and not in a position to cultivate9000 acrs, of their agricultural lands and thereby not yielding the crops and further todirect the respondents to take immediate remedial measures in the mining area ofRG 2 and 3 in repairing the canal as the leakage of canal (L6) of SRSp waler wouldIead to serious damages including sufferance of death of the workers, working roundthe clock and further this Hon'ble court may please to issue necessary directions to t the respondents for he protection of mining works and also the farmers and farm '
workers of the above /illages.
Counsel for the Petit oner: LETTER
Counsel for Responr ent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO,SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES I-IMITEDSC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES I-IMITED
Counsel for Responc ent Nos. 3 to 9: Gp FOR IRR|GAITON & CAD
Counsel for Respono:nt Nos. 10 & 11:Gp FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respond rnt No. 12: SRt T. V. RAMANA RAO
(sc FoR TSPCB)
The Court made the f, rllowing: ORDER
E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SA ISH CITANDsANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.I
TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION (PILI No. 161 of 2O16
ORDER: (Per the Hoi'ble the Chief Jusfice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present public interest litigation has beenregistered on account of a letter received by this Courtand the facts reveal that allegations were made by thepetitioner in his letter that a canal is being diverted i.e.,canal (L6) of SRSP, in order to favour Singareni ColleriesCompany Limited, which is carrying out opencastmining.
Learned Government Advocate has informed thisCourt that the petitioner, who has sent the letter, was infact an employee of the Singareni Colleries CompanyLimited and he was removed from service. In thosecircumstances, he sent the letter.
This Court has carefully gone through the counteraffidavit filed in the matter and the same reveals that thesubject canal was constructed long back and it iscatering to the need of 7O0O acres of area and it was notat all diverted as stated in the letter. It has also beenstated that the Singareni Colleries Company Limited is acompany owned and controlled Central.by the Governmer t as well as by the State Government and it isnot a cas: where any private individual has beenfavoured, a r alleged by the petitioner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, as the cana_litself has b :en constructed long back and there was nodiversion frop 16. main proposed design, this Court doesnot find anf reason to pass any further orders in thepresent pub.ic interest litigation.
The pr:sent public interest litigation is accordinglydisposed of. The miscellaneous applications pending, ifany, shall st rnd closed.any, shall st rnd closed.
SD/.K.SAILESHI -/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR [,']//TRUE COPY//('i'SECTION OFFICERSECTION OFFICER
To,
To,21. . the Two One State of CCs CC to to Sri T_ek Gp J nganaIlOUTl=or trrioation and' Sreenivasa Rao., C#ffi'i1;;'O""r",op..nt, SC for Singareni Co ieries Limited (OpUC)High Court for21. . the Two One State of CCs CC to to Sri T_ek Gp J nganaIlOUTl=or trrioation and' Sreenivasa Rao., C#ffi'i1;;'O""r",op..nt, SC for Singareni Co ieries Limited (OpUC)High Court for3. two L:Cs to Gp For Revenue, High Court for the Stat4. one cc td srli ['v.'i)illn. ]5. Two CD CooresRao, SC for rSpcB roei3f,rulrnsana [[oUT]]4. one cc td srli ['v.'i)illn. ]5. Two CD CooresRao, SC for rSpcB roei3f,rulrnsana [[oUT]]6.. One Spare boplMBCNPJMBCNPJ
qgII
DATED: 3011212021
()v".$lu(ro1)+ORDER
WP(PIL).No.161 of 2016
DrsPosrNG oF THE WP(PIL)WITHOUT COSTS