Hyderabad: Yet another case complaining of honey trap and failure on the part of police to act on a complaint came up for hearing before the Telangana High Court. Justice Vijay Sen Reddy of Telangana High Court on Thursday directed Government pleader to get instructions from the principal secretary, home department, Director General of Police, commissioner of Rachakonda, deputy commissioner, and others in a case pertaining to the honey trap of working boy Palle Jathin Vardhan Reddy. He complained that police were not accepting the complaint and initiating FIR against the accused persons. Rapolu Bhasker representing the petitioner argued that the accused hatched a plan to extract the money from the petitioner, captured his nude photos, and threatened him to pay Rs 10 lakh. The petitioner also pointed out that they were blackmailed and put in a panic situation by colluding with each other. The judge admitted the case and posted the matter to June 20 for response of the respondents.
Verdict on verdict case against sports VC-MD reserved
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court reserved a verdict in a contempt case filed against the vice-chairman and managing director of the Sports Authority, Hyderabad. K. Dora Reddy in his contempt case complained non-compliance with directions given by the court requiring the said authority to release full pension and pay arrears that the petitioner is legally entitled to. The pension benefits were said to be withheld for the last 18 years. According to the petitioner, the authority failed to comply with the said order within the stipulated time. Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that a review petition has been filed against the order requiring payment and the same is pending. He further pointed out that the original order of the court granting pensionary benefits to the said petitioner was liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was a government servant and therefore the government of Telangana was ought to be made a party to the first petition praying for the release of pensionary benefits. He also drew the attention of the court to the GO Ms 292 issued by the competent youth, advancement, tourism and culture (sports) department on October 16, 2023, holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of funds. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the GO Ms 292 being relied upon by the respondent authority was issued, after the issuance of orders of the court to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on June 5, 2023. Counsel, therefore, argued that the passing of the said GO without complying with the orders of the court was also to be considered as contempt of court. The judge, after hearing both the counsels at length, reserved its verdict.
HC refuses to interfere with single judge order
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reiterated that the power of the High Court is not only extraordinary but also discretionary. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar applying the said theory refused to interfere with an order of a single judge faulting the petitioner for coming to court with unclean hands. Earlier the petitioner pointed out that she was a licensee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) Kalyanamandapams at Hyderabad, Parigi, and Doma of Rangareddy district as one group since 2015 and continued till 2018, and thereafter representation for renewal-cum-extension were in vain. The single judge pointed out that there is a saga of civil suits filed by the petitioner and the TTD and the present petition is filed seeking a direction to consider the representation made on October 10, 2022, for the return of the items mentioned therein so as to enable her to defend a suit filed by the TTD. The judge took note of the counter filed by the TTD stating that the petitioner did not object so far in the said suit regarding conducting panchnama and recovery of documents, account books, etc. The judge after detailed consideration of the facts said, “This court cannot brush aside the facts narrated in the counter-affidavit and direct the fist respondent (TTD) to consider the said representation for the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. Suffice, therefore, to observe that petitioner can agitate her rights in the suits pending before the civil courts,” and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
PFI told to move special court for relief on probe
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed members of the banned organisation PFI to move the special court for appropriate relief with regard to being examined in the course of the investigation. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Phaniband Ameer Maviya. The petitioner sought for a direction from the court to record his statement as per the mandate of section 161 CrPC more particularly by audio and video recording in the presence of his counsel within the eye distance without hearing the content of the statement. The judge refused to grant such a relief and directed the petitioner to approach the Special Court for any specific relief.
