Correct Writ Prayer, HC Directs

HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Monday granted the opportunity to a practising advocate of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to amend his prayer, if necessary, in a writ petition essentially assailing the appointment of Ranjan Misra as judicial member of the CAT. The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The impugned provision provides a qualification for the appointment of the member to be 2 years, as secretary to the government in the department of legal affairs or legislative department, including member-secretary of the Law Commission and the like. The petitioner, B. Gurudas, who would claim to be president of the CAT Bar Association, contended that the prescribed qualification was different from the Tribunals Reforms Act, which prescribed 10 years of practice in litigation. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed that while the challenge is to rule the crux of the petition related to the appointment of the incumbent, no quo warranto was sought. The bench accordingly granted time to the petitioner, if so advised.

HC allows writ petition if CM, CS removed as parties

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the registry to number a writ petition challenging the rules relating to lower-grade services, provided the petitioner removed from the array of parties the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was dealing with the writ petition filed by Mohd. Abdul Waheed, challenging the new rules under which village assistants became eligible for posts of junior assistants, records assistants, attenders and other services. P.V. Krishnaiah, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the eligibility extended to village assistants was arbitrary. He pointed out that earlier, when the government abolished the posts of village revenue officers, it disqualified them from being appointed as junior assistants in the revenue department. This amounts to hostile discrimination, it was contended. The bench noticed that the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary were needlessly impleaded as parties. The bench noticed that the law distinguishes between malice in law from malafide or malice of fact. It pointed out that only in a case of malice of fact or malafides will it be necessary to implead persons who acted in a malafide manner in their personal capacity. The bench recorded that neither the Chief Minister nor the Chief Secretary had acted in a personal capacity and therefore, unless they are removed from the array of parties, the writ petition cannot be numbered.

HC dismisses TV9 ex-CEO quash plea

Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court dismissed a plea to quash a case pertaining to provocative statements made in a programme telecast on the TV9 news channel after the formation of Telangana state. The criminal petition was raised as part of a complaint registered by LB Nagar police station on a private complaint by Jarnardhan Goud, an advocate, and a chargesheet was framed accordingly. The criminal petition was filed by the then-CEO of TV9, Velicheti Ravi Prakash, to quash the charges made against him in the chargesheet. The allegations were that his channel telecasted a programme causing intentional insult to provoke a breach of trust and passing statements conducting public mischief against the MLAs and the Chief Minister of Telangana state. It was the case of the petitioner that none of the depositions of the witnesses disclosed the breach of public peace and that the CEO was not concerned with the telecast and contended even vicarious liability shall not attract admitting that the said allegations may amount to insult but not provoke public peace. On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Vizarat Ali argued that the petitioners admitted the offence with an apology and the current criminal case was pending before the trial court, and the programme not only insulted the government but the entire Telangana state as it was not the first time such cases are being heard. He pointed out that without a CEO's involvement, there shall be no functioning of the channel, and no news will be telecast or published, saying it won’t be justifiable if the chargesheet is quashed. The judge, accordingly, dismissed the plea seeking to quash the chargesheet pending on the file of ‘XIV’ Metropolitan Magistrate LB Nagar Cyberabad and reasoned that if the FIR made out an offence, it cannot be for the High Court to quash the case.

HC directs fixing date for local polls after Assembly election

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday granted time to the panchayat raj commissioner to file an affidavit scheduling elections to the local body in the state. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing a writ plea filed in the public interest by practising advocate Rapolu Bhaskar, challenging non-initiation of the process to conduct local body elections in the entire state of Telangana as highly illegal and arbitrary. It was contended that the government failed to conduct elections for various vacancies in zilla parishad, mandal parishad, and gram panchayats. Over 6,023 vacancies lie unfilled, the petitioner said. Taking note of the fact the entire state machinery would now be geared towards the conduct of elections to the state Assembly, the Chief Justice told the government pleader that the government must commit itself to a date for the conduct of the said elections. Accordingly, the commissioner of panchayat raj was directed to file an affidavit fixing an election schedule after the Assembly elections. The commissioner was given 10 days to file an affidavit.

HC allows defaulter to travel abroad

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the ministry of immigration to permit a former director of Progressive Constructions to travel abroad. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by M. Sreevani, a former director of Progressive Constructions questioning the lookout circular issued against her. It was contended by the petitioner that she was no longer a director of the said company. E. Venkata Siddhartha, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that in any event, the entire loan amount of Rs 130 crore, said to be due to the United Bank of India, was paid up in a one-time settlement (OTS). Siddhartha also argued that the bank also had multiple collateral securities and instead of proceeding for recovery of the amounts under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, arm-twisting tactics were being employed by the bank. In her order, Justice Nanda said: “This court opines that freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. It is settled law that the right to travel is a part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The judge, while permitting the petitioner to travel abroad and suspending the lookout circular for the period from October 10, 2023, to April 10, 2024, prescribed certain conditions to be followed and granted liberty to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in the event of violation of conditions.

HC rejects PIL on police complaints authority

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday dismissed at the admission stage a PIL complaining about non-implementation of court orders to the police. Bakka Judson, a Congress worker filed a writ petition aggrieved over the grant of judicial powers to the police against the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act. The petitioner contended that the government had given an undertaking to the court that it had constituted a state-level Police Complaints Authority, headed by a retired High Court judge. The complaint was that such a body was constituted, but not functioning. The petitioner pointed out that the order recording the Constitution of the said committee was made in 2021 and therefore, contempt does not lie, as such a petition would be barred by limitation. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar dismissed while pointing out that a PIL cannot be filed to implement a High Court order. The bench also pointed out that the plenary power emanating from Article 215 of the Constitution of India was not inhibited by the law of limitation.