HC refuses to interfere with the rejection of the nomination

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) aspirant Manduri Sharada questioning the action of the returning officer in refusing her nomination papers for the Madhura (SC) constituency.

She told the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar that she inadvertently did not file the originals of Forms A and B and argued that on account of mere technicalities the nomination paper cannot be rejected.

Avinash Desai, senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of India (ECI) said the election process had commenced and the court could not interfere in this writ. He said the petitioner has the alternative remedy of filing an election petition.

Warrant issued against Discom officials

Justice C. Sumalatha on Friday issued a warrant against the superintendent engineer and other officials of the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited after admitting a contempt case filed by a consumer, K. Madhusudhan Reddy. The petitioner said that the High Court, on September 15 had directed the authorities to restore power supply to his residence but the officials not only failed to comply with the order but also took away the meter connection.

2 child norm for panchayats upheld

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar dismissed at the admission stage, a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of Section 21 (3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act which disqualifies a candidate who has more than two children.

A. Srinivas Yadav said that the legislature had insisted on the said disqualification for the panchayats but not for municipalities. It amounted to hostile discrimination against members at the grassroots level, he said.

Speaking for the bench Chief Justice Aradhe said that the challenge on the ground of disqualification was available only in the case where the class created was similar to the one against which hostile discrimination is alleged. Elected members to the municipality and the panchayat are not the same, he said relying on an apex court order arising from Haryana.

HC again directs police not to interfere in civil cases

Justice C.V Bhaskar Reddy on Friday faulted the police for interfering in a civil dispute. The court on a daily basis has been repeatedly cautioning the police to steer clear of cases that are civil in nature. 

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Uppari Vijaya Ramullu and others questioning the action of the Narwa station house officer, Narayanapet district. in calling them to the police station and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.s 77 and 78 at Kumarlingampally of Narwa mandal.

They complained that the SHO had directed the petitioner and some respondents to settle a civil dispute amongst them. The court granted an extension of the interim order not to interfere with the disputes. The judge said that if the presence of either of the parties is required for the purpose of investigation, the SHO could follow the due process of law.

Attachment of MD’s property legal: HC

Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court refused to lift the attachment of houses based on the claim of third parties on the ground that the sale transactions were clandestine.

The judge dismissed two revision petitions field by K. Rajgopal Rao in a dispute between Otira Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Vensa Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and Chemsol Labs Pvt. Ltd. Otira filed a civil suit against Vensa and obtained a decree in July 2018, for about Rs 25 lakh.

The decree holder moved to execute the decree against Rajgopal Rao, managing director, and attach his property. A similar decree was obtained against Vensa by Chemsol.

The petitioner said that the property did not belong to the company and therefore could not be attached.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Sarath pointed out that the petitioner had given personal undertakings for repayment of the suit amounts personally and cannot now take a different stand. Justice Sarath also said that the petitioner cannot question the order on the ground that he is neither a party to the suit nor execution proceedings.

The petitioner also suppressed the fact that he sold the property which is under attachment before filing these two civil revision petitions, it was found.