HC Quashes Look Out Circular Against Company MD

Hyderabad:Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court quashed an Look out circular (LOC) against the managing director of Progressive Constructions Limited. A writ petition was filed questioning the LOC issued by Union Bank of India. It was the case of the petitioner that she was stopped at the immigration counter on the basis of the LOC in respect of credits availed by the company. The grievance of the petitioner was that issuing LOC to prevent travel abroad was an arbitrary exercise of power, abuse of authority and in violation of fundamental rights. E. Venkata Siddhartha, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner no longer played an active role in the administration of the company, the respondents curtailed her right to travel abroad at the cost of affecting her business and livelihood. Counsel for the bank contended that it had to recover more than `180 crore and that the bank was only interested in recovery. The judge pointed out that Union ministry of home affairs, foreigners division, (immigration section), had issued office memorandum framing consolidated guidelines for issuance of LOCs as per which in exceptional cases the circulars could be issued in cases as may not be covered by the guidelines, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities. It further confers power on the chairman/managing director/CEOs of all public sector banks as originating agency to request for issuance of LOCs. The OMs issued are a framework for the issuance of LOCs at the instance of an originating agency. The judge later relied upon a catena of judgments and said the clause which envisages such power of issuing LOC at the instance of chairman/managing director/CEOs of all public sector banks does not stand judicial scrutiny. The judge accordingly allowed the petition and quashed the LOC issued against the petitioner at the request of the originating agency i.e., Union Bank of India.

HC to examine SCCL contract

The Telangana High Court will examine whether extension of contract unilaterally by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) was binding on the other party. Srimaan Industries Private Limited, the petitioner, entered into a contract with the respondent company for transportation of coal after a successful bid. As per the contract, works began in 2010 and were due to expire in 2013. The petitioner was due to receive the security deposit and pending bills, if any. It was the case of the petitioner that due to bad road conditions and insufficiency of coal supply, it intimated displeasure in extending the contract for any further period. Irrespectively, the SCCL extended the contract and neither paid the security deposit amount nor cleared the pending bills. The respondent company contended that refusal to return the security deposit stemmed from the fact that the petitioner did not complete works during the extended period of contract. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that even as per the contract SCCL was under the obligation to issue at least one month notice if it wanted to further extend the period of the contract and alleged that no such notice was issued or received by the petitioner. Justice Surepalli Nanda after hearing the petitioner directed the SCCL to file its response and posted the matter after a week.

Contempt notice to irrigation officials

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to IAS officer Rahul Bojja, superintending engineer and chief engineer of the irrigation and CAD department, in a contempt case relating to rejoining an officer to duty. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by M.K. Khaishagi, a deputy superintending engineer at the department. The petitioner alleged that the authorities wantonly failed to comply with the orders passed by the judge earlier in a writ plea. Earlier the petitioner preferred a writ plea complaining that the respondents failed to consider the representations of the petitioner for rejoining duty after recovery from ill-health after duly availing the medical leave. The petitioner would allege that despite his readiness and rejoining reports as per rules, he was not allowed. The judge had then passed an interim order directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to join in service, forthwith, subject to submission of his medical fitness certificate. The petitioner alleged that despite directions, the respondent failed to comply and were guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice to the respondents and posted the matter after four weeks for further adjudication.

Status quo over shop vacation notice

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court passed an interim order for maintaining status quo in a vacation notice issued by Karimnagar Municipal Corporation to shopowners of Karimnagar district. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by G. Bhoomaiah and 12 others, challenging a notice issued by the corporation for vacating their premises within 24 hours. The petitioners, tenants of the Waqf Board, argued that the notice was improperly issued by the corporation and without authority. The judge observed that the court could not pass any ex-parte order without hearing the Waqf Board, a key party in the matter. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter for further hearing.