Hyderabad: A bench of Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar deferred the hearing of an appeal against the validity of a notification issued for the construction of a greenfield National Highway in Hanamkonda. A writ appeal filed by B. Sridhar Reddy and 11 others contended that environmental clearance was not obtained before issuing the notification. A previous court order stated that if the acquisition proceedings are allowed to be continued taking into consideration the fact that environmental clearance was already obtained, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners as the land is sought to be acquired for a greenfield National Highway, which is admittedly a public purpose.
HC seeks closure report in newspaper probe
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the superintendent of police and the divisional SP of Nalgonda district to furnish a copy of the closure report over an investigation of a criminal complaint, dealing with a writ petition filed by Gundaboina Srisailam. The petitioner contended that a complaint was filed against the Chief Editor of the ‘Vartha’ daily newspaper in Telangana for publishing allegedly untrue articles about the petitioner’s land in the DTCP layout of Kurmed village of Nalgonda district, terming it illegal. It was the case of the police that criminal investigation revealed that the dispute was of a civil nature, and a closure report was also filed for the same. However, a copy of the report was not furnished. The court, disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents to furnish a copy of the closure report.
Shopowner takes civic body to court
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Saturday reserved its verdict in a writ plea challenging waste dumping by municipal authorities, filed by Ramreddy Chicken Market challenging a notice to remove the business opposite Subhas Chandra Bose statue on Toopran Main Road. The petitioner alleged that municipal waste was being dumped in front of his shop and when he questioned the said action, the respondent authorities issued a notice threatening to close his shop. Respondent authorities argued that no such waste was being dumped in front of the petitioner’s shop, contending the petitioner himself was throwing waste in public places. During the arguments, it was questioned as to whether a restriction to carry on such business in that area was present and whether notice for closure of the said shop was issued. Respondent authorities that no prior notice was issued for the closure or removal of such shops and neither was there a restriction for compulsion to not carry on such a business. The judge, after hearing both counsels, reserved the matter for further orders.
