HC quashes petition against 8 new reservoirs under Kaleshwaram

During the course of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel told the court that the state chief minister had decided to enhance the Mallanna Sagar storage capacity up to 50 tmcft.
HC quashes petition against 8 new reservoirs under Kaleshwaram

HYDERABAD: In a relief to Telangana government, a division bench of the Hyderabad HC on Tuesday dismissed the PIL against construction of eight new storage reservoirs, including Sri Komaravelli Mallanna Sagar, under Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project.

Making it clear that there were no grounds to interfere in the PIL,  the bench said that it would not allow the courts as a platform for having political activities by filing petitions in the name of public interest litigation. The bench pulled up the petitioner for filing the petition now on the decision taken by the government last year enhancing the storage capacity of Mallanna Sagar from 1.5 tmcft to 50 tmcft.  The issues raised in the present PIL were not those meant for judicial review, but they were matters relating to technical aspects, the bench observed.

The bench of Chief Justice TBN Radhakrishnan and Justice SV Bhatt was dismissing the petition filed by D Laxmi Narayana, a retired assistant engineer in the state irrigation and CAD department, seeking to grant stay on construction of eight new storage reservoirs  - Sri Komaravelli Mallanna Sagar 50 tmcft capacity, Konda Pochamma Sagar (15 tmcft), Gandhamalla (9.86 tmcft), Baswapur (11.39 tmcft), Malkapet (3 tmcft), Anantagiri (3.50 tmcft), Ranga Nayaka Sagar (3 tmcft) and Kondem Cheruvu (3.50 tmcft) under Kaleshwaram project.

During the course of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel told the court that the state chief minister had decided to enhance the Mallanna Sagar storage capacity up to 50 tmcft. In fact, such a decision needs the approval of the Centre. Besides, it would have its impact on the neighbouring Maharashtra. There was huge increase in project cost estimation due to change in original plan, he added. After hearing the case, the bench asked the petitioner’s counsel for filing the present petition on a decision taken in June 2017. In reply, the petitioner’s counsel said that they have earlier approached the Supreme Court on the issue, but the latter dismissed the petition in July suggesting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Intervening, the bench pointed out why the petitioner has not named the state chief minister as a respondent before the Supreme Court, but included his name in the present PIL.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com