Live
- Tim Southee matches Chris Gayle's six-hitting record in his farewell Test
- AP Mnister Ponguru Narayana Inspects Highway Connectivity Roads to Amaravati
- Reduced inflow: Water levels in Chembarambakkam, Poondi reservoirs drop
- Slapgate haunts CM as Rohini slams Nitish following Patna DM’s action against BPSC candidate
- Amazon Music India Unveils 'Best Of 2024’ Celebrating Top Hits, Artists & Podcasts
- Kejriwal writes to HM Shah on law and order, seeks urgent meeting
- Big e-commerce firms to adopt Safety Pledge on National Consumer Day
- Cop ends life over torture by wife, father-in-law in Bengaluru
- Indian Constitution longest and most beautiful, Kiren Rijiju lauds its inclusive character
- BSNL's Rs 333 Plan Challenges Airtel and Jio with 1300GB Data: Details
Writ by Forum for Good Governance closed
A two judge PIL bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A Shankar Narayan refused to adjudicate a pending writ plea filed by Forum for Good Governance, a city based NGO, challenging the provisions of the GHMC Act which empowered the State government to appoint a person-in- charge for a period of nearly 11 years instead of conducting elect
A two judge PIL bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A Shankar Narayan refused to adjudicate a pending writ plea filed by Forum for Good Governance, a city based NGO, challenging the provisions of the GHMC Act which empowered the State government to appoint a person-in- charge for a period of nearly 11 years instead of conducting elections to the GHMC.
The writ petition was filed in 2015 prior to the GHMC elections held in 2016. It was contended by the petitioner that the provision was contrary to subsequent constitutional amendments. It was also pointed out that the Constitutional amendment required the local law to be suitably amended.
When the bench pointed out that the issue was academic in view of the conduct of the elections. Shivaraju Srinivas, the counsel for petitioner, argued that many municipalities had adopted similar provisions and the provision would have to be adjudicated to ensure that the illegality is not perpetuated.
The bench however closed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the court again when the issue arises.
