Post PIL in land parcel case, directs Hyderabad High Court
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday directed its registry to post a petition before the Chief Justice to take up as a public interest litigation as larger public interest was involved. Justice Challa Kodandaram was dealing with the petition by pensioners K. Venkat Narayana and three others questioning allotment of parcel of land to set up an eatery in Cycad Garden at Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills.
The erstwhile AP government in 2008 had allotted 1,550 sq ft land in the garden to Udi Foods Beverages India Pvt Ltd to establish the outlet, Soya Station. When the petitioners moved the High Court in 2009, it granted stay on the allotment of land. The stay was made absolute in 2011 by the High Court. When the petition came up for hearing, Justice Kodandaram felt that the issues in the petition were manifold and involved public interest and directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice.
HC refuses to amend CrPc
The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition questioning the validity of Section 41 (1) (b) of CrPC. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J. Uma Devi while dismissing the petition by Mandalika Subbaraya Sastry through his GPA holder P. Durga Devi held: “In the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court would neither exercise the power of making laws nor would it issue a Mandamus to the Legislature to make any such law.”
The bench noted that Section 41(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code required a police officer to record, while making or not making an arrest, his reasons in writing. The bench noted that the section applied only to cases where a cognisable offence was committed and which was punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to seven years. The petitioner contended that the section should be amended to make it applicable even for cognisable offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years.
The bench made it clear that “Whether or not a cognisable offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years should be stipulated as the requirement for a police officer to arrest any person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant; or whether it should be for a lesser or a higher period, are all matters for the competent Legislature to decide.”
Revive Nagam’s security
The Hyderabad High Court directed the TS government to restore security cover to Congress leader Dr Nagam Janardhan Reddy. Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, while dealing with a petition filed by Dr Reddy challenging the order of the Nagarkurnool SP on June 27 withdrawing the security cover of 1+1 gunmen. Counsel for the petitioner said that Dr Janardhan Reddy was a minister for 29 years and his security cover had been withdrawn with political motives.
He submitted that recently some leaders of the TRS had held a press conference and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences for exposing irregularities in irrigation projects. Mr S. Sharath Kumar, counsel for the government, urged the court to grant some time to file the counter affidavit on the petition. While granting the interim order, Justice Rajasheker Reddy directed the government counsel to place the details of the press conference of the TRS leaders before the court. The case was posted to July 9.
