Telangana: Contempt Case Against Home Secretary

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the principal secretary of home to be present in court if he failed to implement the December 2023 order of the court. The judge granted four weeks to the officer in a contempt case filed by Ch. Satish. The petitioner was selected in a recruitment process for the post of police constable. However, he was denied appointment on the ground that he was an accused in a criminal case involving moral turpitude. The case of the petitioner was that he was charged in a murder case but was honourably acquitted. His earlier writ petition challenging the refusal of his employment was allowed by the High Court. He thus complained that despite such orders, he was not granted employment and this amounted to willful violation of court orders. The judge accordingly granted four weeks to the respondent to implement the order.

Writ against eatery for running without licence

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Curt took on file a writ plea alleging operation of Grand National Hotel at Afzalgunj without trade licence and fire licence. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Satish Kumar Agarwal, who alleged that J. Sharath Babu was running the hotel without obtaining trade licence and fire licence and without paying property tax. The petitioner contended that despite bringing it to the notice of the authorities and submitting several representations, no action was initiated by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), or Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection (HYDRAA). It was brought to the notice of the court that by virtue of a government order, HYDRAA could conduct inspections of premises, including fire safety permissions, which are mandatory. The judge, after hearing the arguments, instructed the authorities to verify whether the hotel held the required licences and adjourned to September 12 for further hearing.

PIL against Smita Sabharwal dismissed

The Telangana High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against Smita Sabharwal, member-secretary, Telangana State Finance Commission, for allegedly making insensitive and debilitating comments on the social media platform ‘X’. A panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with the PIL filed by Vasundhara Koppula, a social activist. It was the case of the petitioner that, on July 21, Sabharwal allegedly made insensitive and debilitating comments against the differently-abled community which, according to the petitioner, was illegal. The petitioner contended that Sabharwal unwarrantedly and in conflict with the All India Services (Conduct) Rules made remarks against differently-abled people. The senior IAS officer in her social media post opined that differently-abled persons could not be trusted with jobs such as being a pilot, a surgeon, and in the IAS. She advocated against providing quota for such persons, the PIL stated. The panel after hearing the arguments observed that there was no element of public interest in the PIL and accordingly dismissed it. The panel observed that the comments fell within the right of expression guaranteed to the citizen.

NFC official enlarged on bail

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the deputy general manager of Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) and another, accused of cheating and default under Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. The judge was dealing with an anticipatory bail application filed by Ettyala Dhananjaya Gupta and Ettyala Yamini Kumari, alleged to be running Om Sri Sai Ram Finance at Nagarkurnool, along with other family members, without any registration or authorisation from the government. They allegedly collected money from the general public on promises of giving handsome interest. The prosecution alleged that an amount of nearly `70 crore was collected from the general public and was not repaid. Senior counsel T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, argued that his clients were in no way concerned with the alleged offences and were falsely implicated in the case, as they were the brother and sister-in-law of accused no. 1. The senior counsel also pointed out that there were no transactions made from the account of petitioners and no specific allegations leveled against them. The additional public prosecutor (APP) opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioners were directors in the company and specific allegations were levelled against them. The APP contended that the petitioners may tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses if they were released on bail, as the investigation was still in progress and the chargesheet was yet to be filed. After hearing both the parties, the judge after perusal of the material observed that the petitioners were brother and sister-in-law of accused no. 1, and were falsely implicated in the case. In the circumstances, the judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions and directed them to cooperate with the investigating officer in the case.

Prolonged conduct of disciplinary proceedings challenged

The Telangana High Court will examine the legality of the actions of the transport commissioner in continuing disciplinary proceedings in a lethargic manner. It is challenged on the ground that it violated a November 2008 decision of the state government. Justice Pulla Karthik took on file a writ plea filed by M. Sudhakar, who alleged that the action of the respondent authorities in continuing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the him in 2019 for a 2016 incident, for a long period was arbitrary and in violation of the constitution. The petitioner also alleged that the actions of the respondent authority were in violation of the GO issued by the government for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within three months for simple matters and within six months in complicated matters. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as administrative officer with all consequential benefits. The judge, after hearing the petitioner, directed the respondent authorities to file their response and in the meantime consider the promotion of the petitioner without reference to the charge memo.