Live
- Nobody praises Kejriwal's ten-year tenure: Sandeep Dikshit
- MacBook Air M3 Hits Lowest Price in India: Find Details
- High Court Adjourns Hearing on Allu Arjun's Petition to 4 PM
- Pawan Kalyan praises Chandrababu Naidu at Swarnandhra Vision 2047 document launch
- Chirec International looks to transform education with Chirec 2.0 vision
- Telangana CM Revanth Reddy Responds to Allu Arjun's Arrest in Delhi
- Uddhav Thackeray to PM Modi: Pay attention to Bangladesh, act to end Hindus’ misery
- Allu Arjun Arrested: KTR Reacts on X, Calls Arrest Unfair
- Bold steps by Modi govt in reviving Indian heritage, culture: Union Minister
- What are the charges against Allu Arjun: Understanding the Charges Against Him
Will look into review petition only: High Court
A two-judge Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice P Naveen Rao on Friday made it clear that the court would only look into the review petition filed by BJP leader Nagam Janardhan Reddy against dismissal of his PIL questioning the selection of contractor for Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) and not the second PIL move
​Hyderabad: A two-judge Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice P Naveen Rao on Friday made it clear that the court would only look into the review petition filed by BJP leader Nagam Janardhan Reddy against dismissal of his PIL questioning the selection of contractor for Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) and not the second PIL moved by him on the same issue.
As reported earlier, the MLA had alleged several irregularities and illegalities in the process of framing of tender guidelines and the notification issued for the Scheme, and also ignoring the expert advice sought by the government from the Engineering Staff College of India apart from selecting the contractor to execute the scheme.
Reddy had filed a PIL alleging the same. A Division Bench in March 2016, had dismissed the petition saying that the petitioner failed to provide enough proof to substantiate his allegations. The MLA, accordingly, filed a review petition and a new PIL. When both the petitions came up for hearing on Friday, Telangana Advocate General K Ramakrishna Reddy informed the Bench that the government had some preliminary objections on the petitions.
While submitting a memo on the current status of the Scheme, the Advocate General informed the Bench that the government had already entrusted the contract and the contractor company had commenced the works. The Bench, however, said it would first hear the petitioner and then decide on the objections of the Advocate General. Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel P Veera Reddy said the second PIL was filed after the review petition as they received certain additional information with regard to tender process.
He pointed out that though the project cost was estimated Rs 35,000 crore it would likely to escalate Rs 1.5 lakh crore in coming years and there were several irregularities in the tender process. At this stage, while making it clear that it would not be permissible under law for a person to file PILs one after another on the same issue, the Bench asked the Counsel to argue on the review petition only and posted the case after two weeks.
