Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court cautioned against causing preventive detention in regular cases involving law and order. The panel of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha quashed a preventive detention order against businessman Chandrakanth Siddhanth Kamble and a proclamation order against him. The detention order was served on him quite late after it was made. The petitioner is engaged in garment trading in Maharashtra for the past decade. The petitioner contended that in the proclamation notice, it was alleged that notices issued against him had been returned unserved despite all possible efforts, and he had been wilfully absconding and concealing himself to evade execution of the alleged detention order dated June 2, 2021, thereby obstructing the process of law. According to the authorities, the petitioner was “a fake document offender as he has purportedly engaged in a series of unlawful activities, including forgery and swapping SIM cards of unknown persons linked to their bank accounts. These actions resulted in fraudulent transfer of funds, causing financial loss amounting to lakhs of rupees to the unsuspecting public. These activities were carried out in an organised manner within the jurisdiction of the Cyberabad police commissioner, leading to widespread panic and insecurity among the public, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he has repeatedly engaged in cases of forgery and swapping of SIM cards of unknown persons linked to their bank accounts, resulting in substantial financial losses to the public. Such acts of the petitioner disturbed peace and tranquillity in the society.” Allowing the petition, the panel said that “the apex court and this court time and again held that the detention orders shall be passed in rarest or rare cases that too, to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences which may disturb public order. Also, that there is a vast difference between “law and order” and “public order.” The offences, which are committed against a particular individual, fall within the ambit of “law and order”. It is only when the public is adversely affected by the criminal activities of a person, can the conduct of a person can be said to disturb “public order.” Moreover, individual cases can be dealt by the criminal justice system. Therefore, there is no need for the detaining authority to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1986 for passing order of detention against an individual. Invoking of such law adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and draconian.” “The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority,” the panel, speaking through Justice Lakshman, added.
HC dismisses plea on JNTU, AICTE
Justice C.V. Bhaskar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by Kakatiya Educational Society against JNTU and AICTE. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities were publicising the inspection report of only 174 engineering colleges and refusing to divulge and publicise inspection reports in respect of 125 similarly situated engineering colleges. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities have not publicised the other requisite details, including fact-finding committee report and faculty mapping as conducted by IIT, BITS Pilani and NIT. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents should divulge/publish the same for awareness and knowledge of the petitioner and other similarly situated colleges. The petitioner sought a direction to confine grant of affiliation only to eligible colleges without extending any protective shelter to the 125 colleges. The court after hearing the parties dismissed the plea observing that the petitioner had failed to make a valid cause of action against the respondents.
Job vacancy notice under scanner
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging addendum dated May 1, 2024, to the original notification dated December 07, 2022, issued by the Telangana Public Service Commission, resulting in alteration of vacancies for the position of lecturers in government polytechnics. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Jakkula Snothaswini, who alleged that the actions of the commission in issuing an addendum after declaration of the written examination results purportedly for implementation of the GOs was arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution. The GOs dated February 10 and 13, 2024, were re issued for amending the state subordinate service rules for special reservation and women representations in an appointment. Senior counsel B. Mayur Reddy, on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the conduct of the selection process for the position of lecturers ought to be strictly in accordance with the terms contained in the original notification dated December 7, 2022, and GOs issued by state departments must only be given a prospective effect. After hearing the senior counsel for the petitioner, the judge directed the government pleader and standing counsel for TGPSC to get instructions and posted the matter for further hearing.
Plea filed against MEEFC error
The panel of the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court entertained a writ petition seeking a declaration that the Medium and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MEEFC) erred in entertaining a dispute and claim raised by NR Consultant Planners against a quartz mining company, SRP Minerals limited. Further the right of the petitioner to file its counter being forfeited in the ‘Samadhan case’ before the council was also challenged. The petitioner is engaged in production and sale of artificially engineered quartz stone slabs. The petitioner contended that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent arising out of an agreement made on July 30, 2021, for rendering consultancy services. The agreement was for consultancy services and was interlinked with the execution of the project. The petitioner argued that MEEFC did not have the jurisdiction and power to take up a dispute arising out of a works contract as the MSMED Act did not apply to works contracts. The panel accordingly ordered notices to respondents and stayed the further proceedings in arbitration proceedings in the Samadhan case.
