Hyderabad: Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Thursday required the state government to respond to the plea of a lawyer for a gun licence under the Arms Act. Karunasagar, a practicing advocate of the High Court, challenged an order of rejection of his plea for a gun licence. His application was rejected by the police commissioner. It is his case that he appears regularly for a political party and has received threats to his life. In the said circumstances, he sought police protection and despite directions in his favour no protection was granted. When he filed an application for a gun licence, the commissioner reasoned that no incident had occurred consequent to the threat. In appeal, the government rejected the request on the ground that the order of the commissioner was correct. In the writ petition, Karunasagar complained that the order was bereft of reasoning and had the effect of being in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
PIL on law college admission dismissed
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a PIL questioning admissions made in the Mahatma Gandhi Law College. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, unsuited the petitioner on the ground that the petition did not reveal the credentials of the petitioner for invoking the PIL jurisdiction of the court. The PIL has been filed by B. Saramma questioning the admission given to police inspector Gundrapally Raju and the non-implementation of compulsory digital attendance in law colleges. Speaking for the bench, the Chief Justice pointed out that the pleadings did not reflect the credentials of the petitioner and also the parameters as to why the reliefs that must be granted to the petitioner were not stated as per the law as laid down by the apex court. The bench left it to the petitioner to work out appropriate reliefs before the appropriate forum.
Forest dept asked to respond on license for timber depot
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the state forest department to get instructions in a writ petition filed challenging the non-grant of licence for establishing a mini timber depot at Kagaznagar. The petitioner, Mohd Abdul Majid, contended that in spite of following the statutory procedure for obtaining a licence for a timber depot at RB Road, Sirsilk, Kagaznagar, the authorities had failed to grant the same without any reason. On the other hand, the GP for forests submitted that such an exercise would be time-consuming and such a licence would be accorded only after the authorities conduct a detailed inspection. The matter will be heard on February 5.
Mother and daughter seek police protection
Justice C.V Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court has said that private disputes must be settled amicably and police protection sought as a matter of right and citizens must seek police protection only when it is absolutely necessary. Kandala Saraswathi, who appeared in person before the court, contended that there was a threat to her life and also to her daughter from one K. Janaki Ram Reddy due to a family dispute. She stated that they are also not able to cultivate their own land situated at Nomula in Nalgonda district due to apprehensions. The petitioners contended that they needed protection, which has been denied to them by the police. The judge directed the police concerned of Nalgonda to file a counter within one week and adjourned the case.
Reinstatement on humane grounds conditional: HC
Justice T. Sreenivasa Rao of the Telangana High Court held that an employee reinstated into service on humanitarian grounds is not entitled to attendant benefits. The judge allowed in part a writ petition filed by the TSRTC. The corporation filed a writ petition challenging an award of the labour court in favour of R. Sadhana, conductor from Banswada depot. The conductor was initially engaged on daily wages and her services were regularised in 1998. During her tenure, the petitioners issued punishment orders imposing deferment of annual increments on four occasions and censure on three occasions for her misconduct. She was again placed under suspension in 2001 for “cash and ticket irregularities”. Following a domestic enquiry, her services were terminated. After her appeal was dismissed, the reviewing authority modified the punishment on humanitarian grounds by setting aside the removal order and reinstating respondent No.1 into service and imposed a punishment by way of denial of annual increments for a period of two years, which will effect on her future increments and the period of suspension shall be treated "not on duty". After a lapse of 10 years, Sadhana challenged the order successfully before the labour court, which modified the punishment to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and granted the relief of continuity of service and attendant benefits. Srinivas, counsel for RTC, pointed out that the dispute was itself raised a decade after the reinstatement and the award in granting the relief refused to consider the aspect. Dealing with the belated reference, Justice Sreenivas Rao said that though the labour court cannot refuse to answer the reference made by the government invoking provisions of the Act, it ought to have gone into the point as to whether the reference made by the government was in accordance with law before entertaining the dispute basing on the reference. The judge pointed out the law on the issue and modified the award holding that the employee is not entitled for attendant benefits. However, taking into consideration the length of service rendered by her, she is entitled for continuity of service for the purpose of claiming terminal benefits only and the rest of the award is confirmed.
