HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court junked a writ petition questioning the constitution of a Cabinet sub-committee to recommend the way ahead for implementing sub-classification of scheduled caste in the state. The judge heard a writ petition filed by Batthula Ram Prasad questioning the memo of September 12 by which a six-member committee was constituted to study a recent Supreme Court judgment which required sub-classification of Scheduled Castes. The committee consisted of irrigation minister Uttam Reddy as chairperson, health minister Damodar Rajanarasimha as vice-chairmen, three Cabinet ministers and Nagarkurnool MP Mallu Ravi. The long drawn battle of uneven distribution between Malas and Madigs has been for a bone of contention within the Scheduled Castes. It is contended in the writ petition that constituting such a committee without consulting the national commission for Scheduled Castes was contrary to Article 338(9) of Constitution of India. Advocate general A. Sudershan Reddy pointed out that the committee was prima facie constituted only to study the nuances of the judgment and such action did not require consultation with the national commission.
He also pointed out that the list in anyway did not survive since the government has proceeded to appoint a one-man commission headed by retired high court judge Shameem Akhter for the purpose of examining the judgment and recommending the way forward. Referring to Article 338(9) of the Constitution Justice Vinod Kumar said that there was no policy decision being taken by the government requiring consultation with the National Commission of Scheduled Caste. The judge granted time to the government to respond in two analogous writ petition questioning the government order appointing retired Justice Shameem Akhter in place of the six-member committee. The said appointment comes in the light of the committee opining that it is better that the matter be referred to a retired High Court judge than to a political group of ministers and others.
Tax tribunal’s view upheld by HC
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that it would not interfere with the decision of the tax tribunal if it has not made an error of fact. It refused to entertain a writ plea on the ground that the tax tribunal made no error in fact or law. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with the question as to whether an agreement for sales promotion would amount to service for the purpose of service tax entailing registration and payment of service tax. It was contended by the petitioner M/s Pooja Marketing Agencies unsuccessfully that it was not required to register for or pay service tax. The panel rejected the plea on the ground that the marketing/sales agreement was for promotion of products of Shaw Wallace and others. The agreement required promotion of their products and marketing the same. Speaking for the panel the Chief Justice said that this finding of fact could not be termed as perverse. There was no perversity or illegality in the finding warranting the judicial interference while disposing the case.
No anticipatory bail in fraud case
Justice G. Radha Rani of Telangana High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition of a former director of a stockbroking company allegedly involved in a multi-crore financial fraud. The judge was dealing with the petition filed by Alok Kumar Jain, who alleged that he was wrongfully implicated in a case involving the diversion of investor funds amounting to crores of rupees by M/s Conard Securities Private Limited and its sister concerns. The funds, which had been promised to deliver high returns, were allegedly transferred to a defaulted company and misused for personal gains. The prosecution argued that the petitioner, despite being a director of the accused company, absconded to evade arrest. The severity of the fraud, which had affected over 300 investors, was highlighted and the bail petition was strongly opposed by the prosecution. The judge noted that the petitioner was absconding and that a non-bailable warrant (NBW) had already been issued against him. The petitioner’s counsel contended that he had stopped actively participating as a director after 1998 and was unaware of the company’s fraudulent activities. However, the judge emphasised that the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court or challenge the pending NBW, rendering him ineligible for pre-arrest bail. The judge referred to Srikanth Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, stating that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to individuals who abscond or fail to cooperate with the investigation.
