Government Reprimanded For Police Inaction In Sexual Abuse Case

A writ plea was filed by the victim contending that the Karimnagar II Town police was not registering her complaint against the accused merely because he was the son of a district judge. Chief Justice Aradhe, speaking for the bench, said, “The government should hang its head in shame for not registering the complaint of a woman against the alleged offence against her body. The complaint was that she was working in the office of a judicial officer in Karimnagar as an office subordinate and the son of the district officer allegedly exploited her sexually. The petitioner sought registration of a complaint and to quash the order removing her from service. She also sought a direction that there must be a clear prescription of qualifications for office subordinates including their duties and working hours. Both the government and its pleader drew flak from the panel.

The Chief Justice wondered if the government pleader would have responded in the same way if the woman was his relative. Further, he said, the representation of the government pleader was inefficient and incompetent. The bench also opined that a departmental inquiry would be ordered against the station house officer (SHO) for not taking necessary action. The bench summoned SHO Vodela Venkat on Friday to explain why a complaint was not registered in spite of the victim waiting in the police station from 11 am to 4 pm on Tuesday. The bench also commented that the police officers were not able to understand the order of a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari and remarked, “This is the kind of training the police officers are given in this state.” It will continue to hear the case on Friday.

Failure to establish RERA authority challenged

The Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition complaining of non-constitution of an appellate authority under Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (RERA) Act, 2016. The bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sri Boyenepally Sri Jayavardhan challenging an order passed by the original authority. It was the case of the petitioner that the Act provides for a statutory appeal to be made to the appellate authority against any order made by the TS Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Challenging the order of the original authority, the writ petition was filed contending that the government had failed to constitute the appellate authority and thereby deprived the petitioner of the right to statutory appeal. The bench granted six weeks to the government to respond.

Endowments dept to consider  appointment of hereditary trustee

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued directions to the endowments department to consider the case of Javvaji Surendhar for appointment as dharmakartha to the Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy temple. The judge was dealing with the grievance of the petitioner saying that they were founder members of the temple but their right to be appointed was overruled. The judge directed the petitioner to respond to the notification and made it clear that the government should consider the same. The court also permitted the petitioner to make an independent application for recognition as founder trustee.

Writ against police for wrong RTI info

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notices to the DGP, the Malkajgiri ACP and other personnel in a writ plea for allegedly furnishing false information to an RTI application. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Thungunoori Balaraju, an advocate. It was the case of the petitioner that he had filed an RTI application last June seeking information regarding the status of his complaint made in 2021, alleging inter alia criminal assault on the petitioner. The Uppal inspector, the public information officer (PIO), replied to the application. The petitioner was unsatisfied with the reply qua incorrect information, preferred the first appeal before ACP, Malkajgiri. The response was a repeat of the PIO reply. Counsel for the petitioner, Mahesh Mamidla, argued that the ACP ought to have conducted personal hearing and thereafter dispose the appeal. Instead ACP had not only refused to conduct any personal hearing but also forwarded the incorrect information, which was contrary to the law laid down by the apex court. The court granted time and posted the matter to February 29.