HC Tells Cops to Probe Case against Ex-MLA Krishnaiah

 Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court found that no grounds were made to transfer the investigation to CBCID in the case of Bollineni Krishnaveni. The judge directed the investigating officer of Raidurgam police station to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law by considering the factual aspects, including the delay in filing of the complaint. The judge was dealing with two petitions relating to an FIR lodged with the Raidurgam police station. Bollineni Krishnaveni, the de facto complainant, filed the complaint against former MLA Bollineni Krishnaiah. It is her case that while working at a famous hospital at Nampally, she came in contact with the director of KIMS Hospital, who married her at Vizag. He had stated that his wife could not beget children. Three children were born between 2004 to 2011. The birth certificates would reflect this. However, the accused is said to have taken away 2 children. He got the complainant to live in a new villa belonging to him. The children who were living with the father, according to the complainant, were not even informed about their real parentage. She also came to know that records of the children were changed removing her status as the biological mother. While the accused filed a petition for quashing the case, the complainant sought police protection for herself, her minor daughter and to constitute SIT or entrust to the CBCID for independent investigation. On a detailed consideration of facts of the case, Justice Lakshman pointed out 12 facts that need to be investigated and said that for a matter of this nature, when the allegations are specific and serious, then court would not quash the proceedings at the threshold. The court also took cognizance of the fact that mediation had failed. Alongside the said direction, the Judge also required the police to examine on merits the application for police protection.

HC imposes Rs 10,000 fine on counsel

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court disapproved of a citizen choosing multiple writ petitions and his claim could have been closed with a contempt case. The judge imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the counsel for the manner in which the listing was proceeded with. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Mekala Karthik Reddy complaining about the actions of the municipal commissioner, Turkayamjal, Rangareddy district and other departments, in issuing approval to various persons for constructing on an area admeasuring 169 sq. metres though actual available net area was 121 sq. metres. The petitioner sought directions against the respondent authorities for demolition of illegally constructed structure. Counsel appearing for respondent authorities brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking similar relief and orders were passed in that. The Judge after considering the material pointed out that petitioners ought to have filed a contempt case instead of burdening the court by filing the writ petition and accordingly imposed a cost of Rs 10,000.

HC restrains ACB inspector

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court passed an interim order directing the inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) not to interfere with the personal liberty of livestock suppliers without following due process of law. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Penmesta Veera Venkata Ramanjaneya Raju, a businessman and livestock supplier/distributor in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The petitioner alleged that the director-general, ACB, and inspector of ACB were calling the petitioner to their office in the name of investigation and making him sit for hours without issuing any notice/summons and assigning any reasons. The petitioner further alleged that the inspector, ACB, visited the petitioner’s residence to inquire about him on the day he could not visit the respondent’s office due to a family event. The petitioner also alleged that the respondents threatened the petitioner with false cases against him if he failed to appear before the respondents. After hearing the petitioner, the judge passed an interim direction against the respondent authorities and adjourned the matter for further adjudication.

HC orders school officials to take info online

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the commissioner, director of school education and other authorities to permit the petitioner Sarvepalli Radhakrishna Educational Society to upload details online about two new schools branches that the management was opening. C. Ramkumar, senior counsel pointed out that after giving all clearances to the management to start two new branches, they had disenabled the petitioner from uploading online various details including permissions granted. He also pointed out that the link was removed without the authority of law. Ramkumar would point out that 11 such permissions were granted and the management of the petitioner was alone discriminated against by disenabling the link on the website.

Head constable challenges suspension period

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea on the question as to whether a period of suspension of a government employee can be treated as ‘not on duty’ despite the accused’s acquittal by a court for the same offence. M.A. Rasheed, a retired head constable filed the petition complaining that principal secretary, Telangana home police department and the commissioner of police, Telangana, were treating the period of petitioner’s suspension as not on duty. The petitioner alleges that the action of respondent is contrary to the judgment rendered by a criminal court wherein he has been acquitted of the offence. The petitioner further alleged that the conduct of the respondents in ignoring the acquittal of the petitioner and treating the said period as not on duty was in violation of various articles of the Indian Constitution. After hearing the matter, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their reply and posted the matter for further adjudication.