Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to interfere with an order of the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB).
The bench was examining the board's jurisdiction in calling upon the writ petitioner to execute a bank guarantee of ' six lakh as a condition for resuming quarry operations in Sangareddy.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a writ plea filed by Buildmate Sand Pvt Ltd. The petitioner stated that it was awarded a quarry lease in August 2022 and they had started operations last October after obtaining sanctions and permissions from the authorities. The petitioner alleged that in just two months, the TSPCB issued a show cause notice pursuant to a complaint alleging pollution in the surroundings.
The petitioner contended that after considering the reply, TSPCB passed a series of directions, including one to sprinkle water for reducing air pollution levels, building a green belt near the site, inter alia also directing to submit a bank guarantee of ' six lakh within a month. The petitioner said that the board has no powers to ask for a bank guarantee while they would comply with the remaining directions.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that if there was any violation of the directions, the TSPCB can issue prohibitory or closure orders. The bench, speaking through the Chief Justice, said "the power to issue directions" included a wide ambit which included the power to impose such directions.
HC stops further demolitionm of a wine shop in Banjara Hills
Justice Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday restrained revenue authorities from proceeding with the demolition of a wine shop on Road No. 3 Banjara Hills. The judge heard the writ petition filed by Liquid I.V. questioning the role of the revenue authorities and the police in proceeding to effect the demolition.
The court granted the lunch motion, but before it could be taken up revenue officials initiated the demolition. The petitioner's counsel E. Venkat Siddhartha intervened in the proceeding to inform the court regarding the illegality of revenue officials' actions and arguing that the petition could not wait till 2.30 pm.
The court heard the matter at length. It perused the photographs from the site and directed the officials not to carry out any further demolition and directed the parties to maintain status quo.
The petitioner highlighted a similar incident in 2010 where, despite a court order, officials demolished the property. The petitioner contended that due to the interference of a local politician, the revenue officials are acting in the interest of the politician.
AP govt's order cancelling caste certificate suspended
Justice N. Jayasurya of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday suspended an order of the state government under which the caste certificate of Kothapalli Geetha, former Araku MP, was cancelled. The judge issued notice before the admission of a writ petition filed by Geetha wherein she contended that the district collector, after an elaborate inquiry, confirmed her caste in 2016, as Scheduled Tribe, after referring to her birth, nativity, and her ancestors for over nine decades.
However the AP government allowed an appeal by a third party, AP Scheduled Tribes Employees Association, and cancelled her caste certificate. S.S. Prasad, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the appeal itself was not maintainable Under The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes And Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993.
He contended that, earlier, in a WP filed by the petitioner, the High Court had on December 26, 2023 granted two weeks to Geetha to file her objections before the government on the maintainability of the appeal and directed the government not to dispose of the appeal before it for the period.
The impugned order of the AP government was passed on January 4, violating the order of the High Court. The judge observed that the impugned order was in gross violation of the earlier order of the High Court and the concerned officials will be guilty of contempt of court.
The petitioner impleaded Kantilal Dandae, principal secretary, tribal welfare department, as party respondent and contended that the official, who issued the impugned order, was liable for contempt of court.
