Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a writ petition complaining of land encroachment by BRS MLA Dasari Manohar Reddy. The judge entertained a writ petition filed by Japati Rajesh Patel of the Rashtriya Hindu Parishad. The petitioner complained that the Peddapalli constituency MLA and members of his family were encroaching on the Ranganayaka Swamy temple land at Pataram of Peddapalli district. The court ordered notice and posted the matter after two weeks.
Consider tribal's plea on displacement: HC
Justice C. Sumalatha on Thursday directed the revenue and forest authorities to consider the representations of Banotu Rambabu who stated that forest officials were interfering with about 400 acres which tribals had been cultivating for over a decade in Thallagudem section in Khammam. The officials were seeking to displace traditional forest dwellers contrary to the provisions of the ST and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act. The judge directed the petitioner to bring the incidents to the notice of the divisional forest officer.
Centre assures benefits in missing man case
The Telangana High Court took on record the statement of the Centre that it would act in accordance with the law in providing terminal benefits to the family of a missing CRPF constable, M. Srikanth. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by M. Appa Rao, Srikanth’s father, who said that the constable was missing since 2016 after meeting with an accident. Appa Rao sought directions to the Centre to release the post-retirement/ death benefits. The bench recorded the statement of the Centre that Srikanth had named his wife as his nominee and was awaiting an application from her.
HC asks ex-district judge for more records
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court sought further documentation from retired district judge P. Ranjan Kumar. The petitioner, appearing as party in person, wanted a CBI or SIT investigation on his complaint lodged in 2020 before the President of India and the superintendent of police, Jagtial. His case was that while he was presiding officer of the Jagtial court, the Bar had boycotted his court after he opted for service in Telangana. Repeated complaints made by him were not acted upon. He quoted multiple judgments in his prayer. Earlier a division bench had asked him to make alternations in the scheme and design of his petition.
Man moves HC on impounding passport
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice K. Vinod Kumar on Thursday adjourned a writ plea filed by K. Anil Kumar to Monday. The bench was dealing with his appeal questioning the order of a single judge directing the Indian Consulate at Chicago to impound his passport on the ground of a pending arrest warrant issued by the criminal court in Hyderabad. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the service of notice in respect of the writ filed before the single judge was done in the USA on July 14, two days after the order passed by the single judge. The Deputy Solicitor General of India said that they shall not act upon the order of the single judge till Monday.
Freezing of account without case challenged
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Thursday reserved for orders, two writ petitions that challenged the freezing of accounts by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) and the police. The writ was filed by Shainul and another person, questioning the action of the EOW which she said was done without following the Criminal Procedure Code provisions. Petitioner’s counsel said she was not listed as accused in either the letter written by the EOW to the bank upon registration of the FIR as well as in the chargesheet filed before the lower court. The chargesheet did not show her property as being attached.
Follow merits in Health Worker Recruitment
Justice P. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court directed the government to adhere to merit while effecting appointments to the posts of multipurpose health assistant (male) (MPHA(M)). The petitioner, Shiva Koti Narasimha Chary, questioned the government in not appointing him to the post despite securing more marks. His counsel contended that the court had previously passed an order directing the government to follow specific procedures for appoints an appointment for the post of MPHA(M). The government, however, failed to adhere to the court’s order and rejected the appointment.
