The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Tirumala Devi, took on file a writ plea filed by Karimnagar police commissioner Abhishek Mohanty seeking relief against his cadre allotment to AP by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea challenging the interim refusal order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench in relation to the allocation of IPS officer Abhishek Mohanty. The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Tirumala Devi, took on file a writ plea filed by Karimnagar police commissioner Abhishek Mohanty seeking relief against his cadre allotment to AP by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The petitioner is seeking his reinstatement in Telangana. The petitioner contended that he continued in service in Telangana. However, the Union of India subsequently issued allocation orders, posting him to Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner’s request for interim suspension of the orders of the Union of India in relation to his allocation was rejected by the CAT, prompting him to approach the High Court. The petitioner drew a comparison to the case of IAS officer Lotheti Siva Sankar, whose Telangana cadre allotment was overturned by CAT, leading to his reallocation to Andhra Pradesh on domicile grounds. The petitioner argued that he should be entitled to similar relief. Counsel for the petitioner P.S. Rajasekhar referenced a July 2021 CAT order that earlier affirmed his domicile as Telangana, asserting that the Union government failed to duly consider this aspect when rejecting his representation. The petitioner further argued that authorities misjudged his eligibility by failing to assess his domicile records correctly. A BTech graduate from Vasavi Engineering College, Hyderabad, and an IPS officer since 2010, he contended that he was a permanent resident of Hyderabad and should have been allotted to Telangana as per the Pratyush Sinha Committee’s recommendations. The panel directed the respondents to clarify whether the Union of India had taken a GO dated March 14, 2022, into account while rejecting petitioner's claim for Telangana cadre allocation in February 2025. Additionally, the panel noted that the deadline for the petitioner to report to Andhra Pradesh was set for March 20, 2025. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and counsels for the Union and state governments, the panel extended the date of joining of the petitioner to Monday and posted the matter for further clarification.
PF dues from HMDA stayed by HC
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of Telangana High Court suspended the order passed by the assistant director of Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Corporation, which directed the attachment of a property owned by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. The judge admitted a writ petition filed by HMDA, challenging the order issued under the provisions of the ESI Act. Section 45A of the Act grants authorities the power to pass orders when employers fail to maintain records and make employee contributions. The ESI Corporation alleged that HMDA had not paid salaries to its employees since 2017, leading to the attachment of government property. However, HMDA refuted the allegations, arguing that the order was issued without following the principles of natural justice and was in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner further contended that the decision was legally flawed and imposed an unjust financial burden on the organisation. After hearing both parties, the judge directed the respondents to file their response within four weeks. It is the specific case of HMDA that the state 192 employees were employed by a sub contractor and it was the statutory liability of the contractor and not that of HMDA. Meanwhile, the judge suspended the attachment order until further proceedings.
Aqua Marine Park construction challenged
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the state to file its response in a PIL pertaining to the construction of an aqua marine park at Kothwalguda, Hyderabad. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation filed by G. Sri Divya and others. The petitioners sought a direction to stop construction of India’s largest Aqua Marine Park and Aviary at Kothwalguda, Hyderabad and to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment considering the potential consequences on marine life, bird population, and their natural habitats. The panel directed the authorities to file their counter within four weeks. The petitioner contended that the project in question lacked the mandatory clearances.
Biz man accused of siphoning rice gets bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of misappropriation of custom-milled rice. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by R. Abhilash Reddy. According to the prosecution, the petitioner’s rice mill, Sri Om Industries Rice Mill, entered into a Custom Milling Agreement with the Telangana Civil Supplies Corporation for the Kharif 2023–2024 season. The petitioner allegedly received 2,996 metric tons of paddy, but delivered only 1,073 metric tons, leading to allegations of misappropriation of 1,236 metric tons. A complaint was lodged, and a case was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and argued that the corporation failed to follow the prescribed procedure before initiating criminal action. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per agreement, the petitioner is to supply the custom milling rice to the corporation on or before March 30, 2025. But, even before expiry of the aforesaid period, the police registered crime based upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. The judge observed that there was no clarity on whether the corporation had exhausted its contractual remedies before invoking criminal prosecution. Considering these aspects, the judge deemed it a fit case for anticipatory bail and granted relief to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
