Legal Briefs | Rama Navami puja nitty-gritty under Telangana HC lens
Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of Telangana High Court sought clarification from the endowment department and management of the Bhadrachalam temple on the intricacies of the Sri Ramulavari Kalayanam scheduled for April 17 on the occasion of Sri Rama Navami. A bunch of writ petitions are filed by Kancherla Venkata Ramana and others challenging the action of respondents in allegedly reciting inappropriate Pravara and invocation of the ancestors and Gotram of the principal deities of the Bhadrachalam temple during the performance of the annual celestial wedding of Lord Rama and Goddess Sita on Sri Rama Navami. Senior counsels D.V. Sitharama Murthy and Hari Haran appearing for the petitioners pointed out that reference to the Gotram and Pravara are not in accordance with Hindu beliefs. Senior counsel also pointed out that while at the ceremonial wedding, the religious chants must necessarily reflect the Pravara of Lord Rama and Devi Sita and also the respective Gotram. They are not being recited. Senior counsels also complained that contrary to the established customs the pandits performing the religious ceremonies were reciting the Pravara associated with the name and Gotram of Lord Vishnu and Goddess Mahalakshmi in place of Lord Rama and Goddess Sita and this was damaging not only the ethos of the ceremony but also it hurt the religious sentiment of Hindus and was also in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution. Requiring the proper detail in the matter, Justice Shravan Kumar clarified to the powers that be that any ceremony could not be whimsical and must fall in line with customary religious practices. The judge accordingly posted the matter to April 15.
One more writ on Kaleshwaram
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar on Monday took on file yet another plea seeking a CBI inquiry into the Kaleshwaram project. A writ plea was filed by B. Ram Mohan Reddy, who appeared as a party in person, contending that his complaint was not registered as an FIR and that the Central Water Commission must investigate into this issue and file a report. He also sought stoppage of all ongoing or any further works since public money was being spent. The panel considering that several writ pleas had been filed regarding similar issues, directed the same to be heard along with other those pleas and deferred hearing. Despite the petitioner insisting the matter to be heard, the panel made clear that any order at this stage is likely to be incorrect with the other pending matter.
HC seeks rules on Building permits
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court required the Centre to place before the court all the guidelines relating to the protection of buildings of defence establishments in the city, and adjourned a bunch of nearly 40 writ petitions filed by the Union of India questing various illegal building permissions for residential and commercial buildings in and around various sensitive areas of Secunderabad, Bolaram, Artillery Centre Mehdipatnam, etc. Earlier, the Centre pleaded security challenges and said alleged multiple illegal constructions were carried out without clearance from the authorities. Dhananjay Reddy appearing for the one of the private parties complained that there was no embargo in the relevant time when the permission was granted for the layout and the Centre had no authority to stall the development of sanction layout. The judge noticed various circulars with yawning gaps and directed Praveen Kumar, deputy solicitor-general, to place before the court all relevant circulars and deferred hearing to April 22.
Land records updation to stay
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar on Monday disposed of a writ seeking to declare the land records updating programme as illegal. A PIL was filed by Raj Kumar Sistla contending that the programme was illegal and in violation of the Constitution. He sought a direction to frame rules of updating revenue records as per the Telangana Pattadar Passbooks Act. The bench was of the considered view that no direction can be given by the court regarding the manner in which revenue records must be maintained by the government. The petitioner contended that the cause of action does not survive and sought a direction from the court to dispose of it accordingly.
