Prisoner Told to Move Home Dept for Parole Extension

Hyderabad:Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a prisoner seeking additional parole of 30 days to take care of his ailing mother. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Amer Mohammed Jamal. Initially, the parole of the petitioner was approved for 30 days which expired on August 5, 2024. The petitioner contended that his mother’s health deteriorated and close monitoring of her health was suggested by doctors at the Osmania General Hospital. He applied for an extension of parole. The petitioner said that he expected his request would be granted, therefore, he did not surrender before the jail authorities on the expiry of the parole. He said he came to know later that his request was rejected and therefore surrendered on August 12, 2024. He said that his parole was rejected on the ground that the Chief Minister who held the portfolio for the home department was on an international tour, necessary permission could not be accorded. The judge, after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the writ plea by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the home department and the superintendent of prisons at the Cherlapally Central Prison, to regularise the period of his overstay to avoid any rejections of parole in the future on that ground.

Notice to DGP for contempt

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered that notices be served on DGP Dr Jitender in a contempt case. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by T. Dhangopal Rao, an activist, alleging that the DGP wantonly disobeyed the orders of the court. Earlier, the judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by him challenging the inaction of police in taking action against the vehicles using black film on windscreens. The petitioner alleged that police failed to comply with the judgment of the apex court by taking appropriate measures for the removal of the black film. The judge disposing the writ plea said, “In view of the statement made in the counter-affidavit and as the respondents — police — have taken all the measures to prevent the using of black films to the wind screens both rear/front and side glasses, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the police to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the apex court in Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India.” The petitioner filed a present contempt case alleging that police failed to comply with the order. The judge after hearing the submissions ordered notices to the DGP and posted the matter to September 6.

Notice for civic secy for processing layouts

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a writ plea challenging a memo issued by the principal secretary, municipal administration, for “processing of layout regularising scheme applications and disposal thereof in all urban development authorities, gram panchayats and collection of regularisation charges.” Juvvadi Sagar Rao, a social worker filed a PIL complaining that grant of such regularisation was not only unconstitutional but also amounted to colourable exercise of power. He said it also violated provisions of the Urban Areas (Developmental) Act, Town Planning Act, Municipalities Act, HMDA Act and the Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner pointed out that the regularisation schemes are already subject to judicial scrutiny before the apex court. The petitioner pointed out that such action would seriously affect urban and slum areas, traffic, electricity, and drainage. It would lead to urban flooding and unplanned growth, he said. He also pointed out that people who break the law would stand to gain more than those who follow it.

TGSTRC action against driver challenged

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the actions of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) and its officers, in modifying the punishment of a driver working under it. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by D. Mallaiah, who alleged that the authorities had in an illegal manner modified the punishment of deferment of his annual increment for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner further alleged that the authorities were also treating the period from date of petitioner’s removal to date of reporting duty as not on duty for all purposes. The petitioner sought for a direction to the TGSRTC regional manager to abstain from effecting the modified punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The judge after hearing the petitioner, directed the authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.