Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakhsman of the Telangana High Court directed the police not to arrest senior counsel Vedula Venkatramana in the alleged offence of bribery of High Court judges. The judge made the interim order and clarified that the investigation must go on. In fact, Justice Lakshman specifically defined parameters for such investigations. He was dealing with a petition filed by designated senior counsel for quashing a criminal case alleging that he had promised to get favourable orders from the court. It is the case of the petitioner that believing the version of the petitioner, the complainant, Dr Chintala Yadagiri, had paid Rs seven crore to him in cash out of the Rs 10 crore that was demanded. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to get favourable orders. It is further alleged that the petitioner colluded with the other side by taking Rs 25 crore in cash. The complainant also alleged that with great difficulty and much persuasion, the petitioner had returned Rs one crore. The court, after perusing the records, opined: “When the petitioner informed the complainant that he would manage justice and influence bench judges to get favourable orders and demanded an amount of Rs 10 crore, he should have rejected the said offer. Instead, he accepted and paid the said amount of `seven crore. Thus, the said transaction itself is illegal. Therefore, the question of committing a breach of trust by the petitioner does not arise. Prima facie, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein, more particularly, Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC.”
The judge directed not to arrest the petitioner till April 12, and mentioned that allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious. Stalling the investigation at the threshold is not proper. The judge made it clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and DCP, CCS, Hyderabad, was directed to supervise the investigation and file a counter.
HC refers family dispute to mediation
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, referred to mediation in a dispute relating to mother, her son and daughter-in-law. The panel was dealing with a writ appeal filed by the daughter-in-law challenging an order of a single judge who vacated a status quo order obtained in her favour in October 2023. The parties were involved in a dispute relating to maintenance under the Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The status quo order came in favour of the mother-in-law of the appellant. The panel was of the view that since it was a matter relating to a family, the parties must present themselves for mediation. The panel voiced concern at the manner in which the mother-in-law was being treated and said that the aged deserved to be treated better.
HC refuses to entertain writ on Wakf property
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ plea complaining of inaction by Manikonda municipality against illegal and unauthorized construction over Hazrath Roohullah and Abdul Rahman Khan RA dargah in Gandipet mandal in an extent of 2000 sq. yards. The managing committee of the said dargah complained that the municipality and the Wakf board had turned a blind eye to illegal constructions being carried out by one Sheik Azeem and six others. According to the petitioner committee, its representations made last November fell on deaf ears and such inaction was illegal and arbitrary. Refusing to entertain the writ plea, Justice Vinod Kumar pointed out that the said complaint could well constitute a valid plea before the Wakf tribunal. He said that a senior district judge presides over the tribunal and hence there should be no reason why the petitioner should not move the Wakf tribunal and rather than burdening the High Court.
