Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure at the request of the Lok Sabha member from Nalgonda, Gutta Sukhender Reddy, to withdraw a PIL and a writ petition that questioned the action of the TS government in conferring Cabinet rank status on persons who were appointed advisers to the government, and also appointment of six parliamentary secretaries.
The High Court said that it will not allow anyone to use the court as a platform to settle political scores.
Mr Sukhender Reddy had moved the two petitions in 2015 when he was in the Congress. In June 2016, he joined the TRS and now wants to withdraw the PIL and the writ petition.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J. Uma Devi questioned how the petitioner can seek to withdraw the PIL.
The bench said that the courts were not here to entertain cases as per the likes and dislikes of the petitioners.
The bench said that it will not allow withdrawal of PILs that are moved on the grounds of public interest in order to serve the personal interests of petitioners.
The bench said that if the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ against the appointment of parliament secretaries, he could, but not the PIL.
The bench made it clear that it would hear the PIL and decide the case on merit.
Mr Sukhender Reddy had questioned the conferring of Cabinet rank status to advisors of the state government and chairmen of various corporations and also the appointment of six parliamentary secretaries.
The bench adjourned the hearing of the PIL.
Polo Ground details sought
The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to place before it the status of request of the TS government to allot Bison Polo and Gymkhana Grounds in Secunderabad for construction of a new Secretariat building by September 19.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J. Uma Devi was dealing with a PIL challenging the decision of the Central government in giving up Bison Polo Grounds and Gymkhana Grounds for construction of the Secretariat.
Former DGP M.V. Bhaskar Rao, cricketer Vivek Jaisimha, charted accountant T. Bharadwaj and retired squadron leader Anil Bhalla who moved the PIL contended that the decision of the Centre was in violation of the Cantonment Act and also in violation of the Constitution.
They said that both the grounds were presently being used for Defence purposes.
They said that the Defence Ministry has no power to make the allocation as it was the President who has to accord permission as both the grounds belong to the Cantonment.
Assistant solicitor general K. Lakshman submitted that as on date, there was no information about allocation of both grounds to the state government and they have to ascertain the correct picture from the Centre.
While asking the state and the Centre to place the status, the bench adjourned the case to September 19.
