Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court faulted revenue authorities and the state IT department for not filing its counter in a writ petition dealing with allotment of Aadhar centres. The judge extended an earlier interim order restraining the government from allotting any new centre in Nizamabad district. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Nimma Nagaswamy and another person from Siddipet district questioning the lack of prescribed procedure in allotment of new Aadhar centres. According to the petitioner, there was no notification nor was any advertisement given calling for applicants and no eligibility criteria was fixed. It is alleged that the entire process of allotment was whimsical, arbitrary and at the instance of the state government. The central government filed its response to the said writ petition that its job was only in providing basic wherewithal and it was for the state government to allot the centres. In this context, Justice Vijaysen Reddy noted that no counter affidavit has been filed by the state government. The court did not appreciate the yawning silence, finally granted time till the end of October to both wings of the government to file their response.
HC pulls up NIA for illegal detention
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the NIA and faulted it for large-scale procedural violations in the detention of Devender, a student of government degree college, Siddipet. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana ordered his release forthwith. The bench was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by D. Swapna, wife of the detenue. She alleged that the detenue was taken away while he was writing his undergraduate examination at the college on June 18.
According to the petitioner, the detenue was picked up by plainclothes men who did not disclose their identity. She received a phone call from her husband that he was taken to Mulugu police station and was being moved to Raipur town in Chhattisgarh. At the time of filing of the petition, she apprehended that her husband would become a victim to a fake encounter after branding him as a Maoist. The petitioner also pointed out that they have a six-month-old baby and that her husband is the sole breadwinner. The NIA on the other hand submitted that he was arrested in a FIR booked in Chhattisgarh in 2019 and the case pertains to allegation of conspiracy wherein an encounter took place between the police and a Maoist party in which six from the outlawed wing and a civilian were killed. During the 2019 case, the NIA alleged that the detenue had acted as a mediator between Maoist party and frontal organisations. The agency also told the court that they have served 41A notices on June 17, then investigated him and arrested him after following due procedure. In rebuttal, the petitioner’s counsel placed on record the detenue’s attendance during the examinations. As pointed out by the petitioner, the judge observed that there were discrepancies in the place at which notices were served and the address mentioned in the arrest memo. While he was arrested in Siddipet, it was shown that he was arrested in Guntur.
Pointing out various other discrepancies, the judge observed “the NIA being a premier investigating agency is expected to follow the procedure laid down under law. Instead of doing so, it has violated the entire procedure while apprehending the husband of the petitioner by giving a go-by to the requirements laid down by the apex court in D.K. Basu case”. There is no satisfactory explanation from the respondents with regard to issuance of notice, the court found and added "there is no mention about date, time, and place of service of the said alleged on the detenue."
The principal agency was faulted for violating the procedural safeguards as laid down by the apex court.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Lakshman rejected the plea that the writ petition has become infructuous. “We have to decide the present writ of habeas corpus in the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India to a citizen. The arrest of the husband of the petitioner is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an illegal detention." Accordingly, the court directed the NIA and superintendent of jail, Jagdalpur district in Chhattisgarh to release the husband of the petitioner. The court found that the narrative of the NIA was a story created by the officers. The judge also directed the NIA to strictly follow the law while conducting investigation.
Banjara Hills’ temple case: HC extends stay
Justice C. Sumalatha of the Telangana High Court extended interim orders on the appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Swamy Temple at road no. 1 Banjara Hills. The judge was hearing a writ plea by Konda Ravindrachandra Reddy, challenging the constitution of the board of non-hereditary trustees. The petitioner contended that the trust board was constituted in gross violation of the provisions of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioner further contended that as per Section 15 of the said Act, the Board has to be constituted with seven persons, whereas in the present case the board was constituted with only six persons. He further stated that the board was constituted in utter disregard to the provisions of law. When the judge asked the government pleader, he failed to state on which proceedings the notification was issued constituting the trust board with six members. Earlier, the judge had also recorded the submission made by the petitioner that the alleged members would be taking oath on 24.7.2023 and in case, they proceed with the oath-taking ceremony, the grievance of the petitioner can never be addressed. Accordingly, the court had extended the said order and posted the matter to October 31.
HC faults police role in civil matters
The Telangana High Court entertained yet again a writ petition complaining of police interference in civil matters. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy ordered notice to the state government and officials of Alwal police station to respond to allegations of interference without jurisdiction. The petitioner, Pinjerla Santosh Yadav, complained that the SI had trespassed into his house without there any offence registered against him. It was contended by the petitioner that such illegal interference and trespass was in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner even claimed a compensation of '10 lakh from the state. The petitioner also contended that the interference comes in light of repeated declarations and directions of the court forbearing police authorities from playing big brother. The petitioner complained that such high-handed behaviour was in sharp contrast to directions from the High Court repeatedly requiring the police to steer clear of civil disputes and not exercise their seeming powers of criminal investigation as a disguise.
HC sets aside TSMSIDC order
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of the Telangana State Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSMSIDC) banning Rigley Life Sciences private Limited from participating in any state tender for a period of two years and blacklisting the company for those two years. The petitioner is a manufacturer of pharma products. It was issued a rate contract for supply of essential medicines and medicines for schemes. The case of the petitioner was that the authorities not only failed to enter into the required contract but also relied upon purchase orders for supplies. It is also the case of the petitioner that the corporation owes over ' 70 lakh. The petitioner contended that it had repeatedly called upon the corporation to clear the sums covered by multiple purchase orders. “The court is of the firm opinion that the contents of the show cause notice (02.12.2022) issued by the respondent to the petitioner do not indicate any intention on the part of the respondent who had issued the said notice to blacklist the petitioner/ Notice.”
The judge said “The court is of the opinion that for a show cause notice to constitute a valid basis of blacklisting order such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is the intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the notice and such clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisted is imposed has an adequate reasonable opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting.”
The judge allowed the writ petition stating that “This court opines that the order impugned is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner had been denied reasonable opportunity in view of the fact that the show cause notice did not state that action by blacklisting was to be taken by the Respondent or was proposed or was under contemplation by the respondent.”
