No multiple pleas on same issue: HC

Five pleas relating to Dharani portal disposed of

January 22, 2021 11:44 pm | Updated January 23, 2021 11:34 am IST - HYDERABAD

Hyderabad, Telangana, 01/07/2020: View of Telangana High Court building, in Hyderabad on Wednesday.
 Photo: Nagara Gopal / The Hindu

Hyderabad, Telangana, 01/07/2020: View of Telangana High Court building, in Hyderabad on Wednesday. Photo: Nagara Gopal / The Hindu

Reiterating that multiple petitions on same issue would not be entertained, Telangana High Court on Friday disposed of five write petitions relating to Dharani portal and its connected matters.

However, the High Court decided to hear two PIL pleas on Dharani portal issue while detaching another PIL petition pertaining to transfer of lands in scheduled areas of the State involving rights of tribal communities. When the batch of three PIL pleas and five writ petitions came up for hearing, the bench of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy expressed dissatisfaction over filing of multiple pleas on the same matter.

“Not going to allow this...,” the Chief Justice said while hearing the pleas. However, the Chief Justice categorically stated that the counsels of the petitioners, who filed pleas with similar content, can assist the court in adjudication of the matters and put forward suggestions if they have any. The bench said no when a couple of lawyers requested for inclusion of their names in the pleas that were retained for adjudication so that they would be informed about the dates of hearing.

“Names are not important,” the Chief Justice remarked, adding that they can know about the dates from the counsels concerned. The bench gave four weeks of time to Advocate General B.S. Prasad when he said that he had to secure instructions on the matter but not before posing queries on what the government is proposing to do on the subject. Lawyer Vasudha Nagaraj, appearing in a PIL plea relating to transfer or registration of lands in scheduled areas of the State, said her petition was different from others connected to Dharani. She sought an earlier date for next hearing of the matter contending that government is violating rules related to the matter. But the Chief Justice asked if the counsel explained about the specific violations in the rejoinder and turned down her request stating the rejoinder did not show any information on that. The previous day, the bench disposed of several PIL pleas filed by different persons on issues relating to COVID-19 -- announcing that multiple pleas on same issues would not be entertained.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.