HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha, set aside a preventive detention order based on a solitary crime out of grudge and animosity. The bench was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed for the release of Lakki Vinay Reddy, who was involved in a murder case. According to the prosecution in the criminal case, the detenue, along with his associates, fatally attacked one Narasimha Sharma.
When the victim’s son tried to save his father, he too was killed. The detenu is the prime accused in the double murder case. It is stated that the murder was a product of “grudge and animosity between specific individuals and not public at large”. Counsel for the petitioner Pasham Trivikram Reddy pointed out that at best it was a case of maintenance of law and order and not public order. He would push to state that passing the said detention order was wholly arbitrary and contrary to the law that has been laid down by the apex court. The detention order also referred to an old incident between groups at the BJP office “It is not open to the detaining authority to pick up an old and stale incident touching criminal history and hold it as the basis of the order of detention”. After detailing various judgements from the apex court, Justice Lakshman reiterated that “Detention orders shall be passed in rarest of rare cases and to prevent the detenue from committing similar offences, which may disturb public order”. The bench clarified that the single incident theory will apply to an aberration of public order and not a violation of law and order. The bench directed the forthwith release of the detenue.
GST Act vires challenged:
The two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea seeking for declaring provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act as ultra vires. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a writ plea filed by GMR Hyderabad Aerotropolis Limited seeking certain provisions of the GST Act relating to an input tax credit in respect of the works contract service and goods and services received by the petitioner for construction of immovable property other than plant and machinery as ultra vires. The petitioner contended that GST is payable at all stages of the supply right for the manufacturer or service provider to the final consumer with the credit of input taxes available at every stage of value addition. The petitioner challenged the scheme of input tax credit stating that it is available in every stage of purchase/sell. The petitioner also contended the introduction of GST was for the removal of cascading effect of taxation and to ensure no breaks in the tax chain, which is contrary to the reality. The bench directed the Income Tax department not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pending the writ petition.
The matter has been adjourned to August 29 for further hearing.
EC Act violation not for preventive detention:
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court declared that violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be a ground for preventive detention under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha, accordingly allowed a habeas corpus petition for the release of Bezwada Laxmi Narayana. The detenue, a resident of Chinnukur mandal in Suryapet district, was detained in the central prison Chanchalguda. The detenue was linked to offenses punishable for cheating and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act. The bench, speaking through Justice Lakshman, made it clear that the object of preventive detention law was “not to punish a man for having done something but to intersect before he does it and to prevent him from doing”. The special government pleader pointed out that the detenue had committed four acts of black marketing and was therefore detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. The said plea was summarily rejected by the bench and the detenue had been directed to be released forthwith.
HC directs Union Bank to hear guarantors:
Justice M. Sudheer of the Telangana High Court directed the Union Bank of India to hear out guarantors before declaring them as willful defaulters. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar Dugar and his wife Manju Dugar questioning the action of the Union Bank in proceeding to take a decision of civic consequences against them without hearing them. It was argued before the court that they are guarantors to a company Jeevan Polymers, which is before NCLT, and the bank is now seeking to recover from the guarantors. The petitioner pointed out that the amount due from the principal debtor was recovered in the proceedings before the Company Law Tribunal. The attempt of the bank to dub and continue to treat petitioner as willful defaulters, counsel Deepak Misra said was arm-twisting. He also pressed that it was in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being contrary to the verdict of the apex court. Justice Sudheer directed the bank to deal with a detailed representation that would be presented by the petitioner to the bank.
HC jumps visually challenged officer’s review petition:
Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court dismissed a review application filed by a visually handicapped officer. In a writ plea filed by Ramidi Thirupathi for reconsideration of his promotion as a hostel welfare officer Grade-1 and allocation of Roster Point No.6, which was reserved for visually handicapped individuals. The petitioner argued that the roster point had been filled by an able-bodied candidate, contrary to the provisions of the government orders that mandated a three per cent reservation for disabled employees. The government pleader opposed the review and pointed out logistical challenges in promoting the petitioner due to his current posting in a different district. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the court dismissed the review application. The decision was based on the contention that the initial order was a result of an alleged oversight and incorrect representation by the authorities. The court did not find sufficient grounds to review its earlier decision. The court clarified that the statement of the government pleader based on which the original order was made was not factually incorrect.
