Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday upheld the preventive detention of Salman Khan, who was detained under the Goondas Act for five crimes under sections of cheating, criminal intimidation and Pocso Act. Although the detention order referred to the detenue being involved in 10 cases, the detaining authority relied only on five offences. An earlier detention was declared illegal and he was released in 2021, but the detaining authority recorded: “The detenue did not mend his habit in nature of committing crimes.” A dossier of nine crimes in 2023 was presented.
Counsel for the petitioner said that Khan runs an NGO and was falsely implicated due to pollical rivalry. Counsel also contended that the petitioner’s actions did not affect public order. The state, on the other hand, countered that the continued commission of offences concerning the earlier detention has an impact on public order.
Justice Lakshman, speaking for the bench, referring to the detaining authority that formed the bases of the earlier order of detention, said that the detention order was based on irrelevant grounds, and that there was no consideration of fresh facts. The bench declared the plea unsustainable.
HC stays disciplinary proceedings against cop
Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday stayed a departmental inquiry against a suspended police constable, petitioner Devarakonda Jayanth Kumar, who questioned the actions of the commissioner of police, who proceeded with a departmental inquiry despite the pendency of a criminal case. The petitioner was employed as a police constable since 2020 and was assigned to E-Coy, CAR Headquarters, Hyderabad, until January 2023.
On September 18, 2022, in a raid on a flat in Banjara Hills — where a brothel was operating — the petitioner was found in a compromising position and was consequently, suspended from service on October 11, 2022, pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
An assistant commissioner of police was requested to conduct a preliminary inquiry, which led to the issuance of articles of charges against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted a written statement on February 13, 2023, denying the charges. Later, a deputy inspector of police was appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
However, due to a viral fever, the petitioner could not appear, which resulted in the issuance of another memo on May 6, 2023, requiring the petitioner’s appearance on May 10, 2023.
Meanwhile, the petitioner was also charged in a criminal case registered under Sections 370, 370(A)(2) of IPC, and sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act. Given that the disciplinary proceedings were running concurrently with the criminal case, the petitioner approached the court by filing the writ petition.
During the court proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner sought a stay on all further departmental proceedings until the criminal case reaches its conclusion. The counsel argued that the petitioner’s defence in the disciplinary proceedings could be jeopardised if disclosed, potentially impacting the défence in the criminal case. On the other hand, the learned special government pleader for home, appearing for the state, emphasised the petitioner’s involvement in an act unbecoming of a police officer, justifying the suspension and the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.
The court observed that the outcome of the criminal case could have a bearing on the departmental proceedings and revealing the petitioner’s defence in the departmental inquiry could potentially jeopardise their position in the criminal case. The judge further directed the police authorities, however, to decide regarding the suspension period of the petitioner.
HC issues guidelines to govt in PD cases
A two-judge bench on Wednesday, hearing a habeas corpus petition, found fault, yet again, with how the state of Telangana has taken recourse to preventive detention. The bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Sree Sudha referred to observations of the apex court faulting the state government for its careless exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention. The bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court directing the state to take stock and evaluate the fairness of the detention orders against the lawful standards. The High Court noticed that though the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in April 2022, the detention authority in the state in 2023 continues to do the same.
The panel was dealing with three writ petitions filed by Nafeeza for the production and release of her husband, Anil Kumar. In the case on hand, the court analysed the circumstances and pointed out that in the two cases involving the detenue for which the police filed the chargesheet, there was no application for cancellation of bail nor a challenge in the higher court against the grant of bail, and there is no consideration of the judgment of the apex court. Justice Lakshman, faulting the consistent violation of law by the government, set out guidelines for the government in cases of preventive detention.
The bench required that the authorities, before ordering detention, shall distinguish between a law-and-order situation and a public order situation. The grounds of detention shall be informed to the detenue at the earliest, including the opportunity for the detenue to make a representation to the advisory board against the order of detention.
The bench made it clear that the detention order shall be placed for review before the advisory board at the earliest, including the representation of the detenue, if any. The court further directed that the advisory board, before preparing its report on the validity of the detention order, shall consider the entire material placed before it and shall record a finding of how public order will be affected if the detention is not confirmed. The board shall also hear the detenue, if the detenue seeks a hearing. “This court would like to further stress that the detenue shall be informed about his right to be heard before the advisory board. The advisory board’s report shall state reasons for its conclusions as it performs a quasi-judicial function,” the bench concluded.
HC appoints former Bihar CJ as arbitrator
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court ruled that unless otherwise provided, arbitration commences from the moment notice is sent for arbitration. Justice Nanda was dealing with an arbitration application filed by Vhrundha Infra Pvt Ltd. The petitioner had earlier addressed the communication to the executive director of Engineer Products SRO Chennai for payment of pending bills and losses suffered in the construction of a research lab, guest house, security lodge, animal farms etc. The respondent denied liability to make payment, leading to the petitioner seeking an amicable settlement through dispute resolution on the failure of which it invoked the arbitration clause. The respondent contended that the petitioner had neglected to respond to the clarification sought that the plea for arbitration was premature, nonexistent, and fictitious. But the court found it was not premature for the recourse to arbitration, pointing out that the conciliation attempted by the petitioner did not bear fruit and therefore, arbitration was due. She pointed out that when the petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator, there was no response from the authorities and therefore, the petitioner rightly invoked the right for arbitration. The judge said that the date on which the request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration was received by the respondent marked the commencement of proceedings. She also pointed out that there is no mutual satisfaction arrived at by the parties at hand, that conciliation had failed, and therefore, there was no illegality in the petitioner initiating steps for the appointment of an arbitrator. The judge accordingly appointed former Chief Justice of Bihar L. Narasimha Reddy to deal with the matter.
HC unhappy with challenge of tenders
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court lamented that all tenders were being challenged in courts of law, dismissing a writ petition filed by T. Y.G. outsourcing agency challenging the action of the Medical Health and Family Welfare department in permitting another bidder, TVT Contractors LLP agency, as qualified to participate in the tender process.
The petitioner contended that the contract was exclusively for eligible agencies from the SC community in contracts related to diet and integrated hospital management services. The petitioner complained that one Suman Yalakacharla was made a partner of the respondent agency only to be qualified as an SC agency. The name of the said party was not even reflected in the firm’s registration. It was alleged that the partnership was constituted to grab facilities for SCs, and the relevant e-tender was for the Dubbaka area Hospital in Siddipet. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions would reveal that the cent per cent holdings by SC, and ST are not stipulated under the tender conditions. On facts, the judge also pointed out that the turnover of the respondent agency was higher than that of the petitioners. The court faulted the petitioner for approaching the court with baseless allegations “simply because the petitioner had been unsuccessful in procuring the works.”
Summing the law on tenders, the judge said: “The ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful parties or parties not even participating in tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court the judge said and dismissed the writ petition.”
HC seeks ED records in jeweller’s case
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court called for the Enforcement Directorate to furnish records on the property of jeweller Sanjay Agarwal. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji, was hearing a writ petition challenging the orders of the ED in freezing the bank account of the petitioner. It was alleged by the ED that the petitioner was using export gold in the local market and crime was registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against the petitioner. The petitioners challenged the attachment order on the ground that Section 17 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provides that the officer exercising powers must not be below the rank of deputy director and then too, must be authorised by the Director. He further contended that the officer should record the reason to believe, should be in writing and communicate the same through the notice. The petitioner contended that they have already paid the alleged customs duty to the authorities. The bench, while directing the standing counsel to produce the original record, adjourned the matter to August 2.
HC seeks govt plan for local body polls
The High Court on Wednesday sought details from the state government as to when and how it planned to proceed with the local bodies’ elections. The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji called upon the Advocate General to apprise the court on the same and posted the matter to July 28. The bench was dealing with a writ plea filed by Rapola Bhasker, complaining of failure on the part of the government and the state election commission in the timely conduct of election to local bides. Rapola Bhasker pointed out that under the Constitution, after the 73rd amendment placed huge importance on decentralised democracy, failure to conduct elections to local bodies was an affront to the Constitution’s framework.
Pay up to unfreeze account, says HC
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed M/s. Squad Security and Allied services to deposit a sum of ₹2.5 crore towards GST as a condition precedent for unfreezing its accounts. The bench passed the order in a writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of bank accounts and the subsequent confirmation of the provisional attachment by the Additional Director, Directorate General of Goods and Services (DGGI) Hyderabad zone via order dated June 30. The counsel for the respondent, the DGGI, Dominic Fernandes, contended that the petitioner collected tax from nearly 120 government organisations, but did not deposit the collected taxes with the GST department, which attracts action under Section 76 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the petitioner has been doing this for the past six years.
The bench of Chief Justice and Justice N. Tukaramji directed that the petitioner deposit a fee of ₹2.5 crore with the GST department and subject to such payment, the provisional attachment of the bank accounts is to be lifted, and this order in no way will interfere with the investigation of DGGI.
