Telangana High Court
WP/40484/2014 of Meghavath Sali, W/o Nanu, Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2014
JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 40484 OF 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between: Meghavath Sali & others. …
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.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 40484 OF 2014
DATE: 31.12.2014
Between:
Meghavath Sali& others.
… Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its Secretary,Home Department,Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 40484 of 2014
ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
The petitioners filed this writ petition with a grievance that inspite of making a complaint to the District Collector, 2[nd] respondent,against setting up of the thermal power plant adjacent to their house thesame has not been decided and disposed of. According to thepetitioners, they should be heard separately and independently althoughthe public hearing was given on 29.12.2014.
We are of the view that the petitioners have no justiciable rightthat their complaint should be treated separately. Moreover, the DistrictCollector has no power to take hearing with regard to the pollutionproblem, which has to be looked into by the Pollution Control Board. Going by the statements and averments of the writ petition and as wellas the prayer made therein the writ petition has now become infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also standdismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________
Date: 31.12.2014
ES
___________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J