Top

Plea against Telangana on Section 8 dismissed

Bench said plea was not maintainable

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Andhra Association of Telangana seeking to declare as illegal, the action of the TS government and Hyderabad police commissioners in not discharging the functions of law and order through 100 police stations within the limits of GHMC contrary to Section 8 and its sub-sections 1 and 2 of the AP Act, 2014.

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt said that the plea was not maintainable.

The bench pointed out that as per Section 8, the Governor is the implementing authority and asked how the petitioner could seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents.

The bench also dismissed another petition as withdrawn. This was moved by CPI leader K. Narayana seeking its intervention in the cash-for-vote scam, implementation of Constitutional values and the People's Representation Act.

Witness’ statements to be recorded
The HC on Monday directed the Special Investigation Team, probing the Seshachalam encounter, to record statements of three witnesses by Friday and submit a report.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt was dealing with the petitions moved by Chilaka Sudhakar, general secretary of the Civil Liberties Committee and Muniammal, wife of Sashi Kumar, one of those killed in the encounter, seeking to book a case under Section 302 of IPC against the police personnel involved.

Twenty woodcutters, allegedly hired by red sander smugglers, were killed on April 7. V. Raghunath, counsel for the Civil Liberties Committee, submitted that there are three eyewitnesses who gave the police a slip the day the woodcutters were allegedly abducted from a bus. He urged the court to direct recording of statements of those three witnesses before the magistrate under Section 164 of Cr PC.

Dammaplapati Srinivas, AP additional advocate general, told the bench the police is yet to examine the witnesses as they were in the shelter of an organisation in Tamil Nadu.

While pointing out that there is a lot of procedure involved in recording their statements before the magistrate, the bench asked Mr Raghunath to produce them before the SIT along with an advocate and the SIT will record their statements in the advocate’s presence. The proceedings will be video graphed.

When the counsel sought two weeks time, the bench refused. It said if there is a prima facie case made out with their evidence, the court will proceed further. The bench directed the SIT to complete the exercise by Friday and submit a report before it.

CBI told to furnish Jagan case details

A division Bench of acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt of the HC on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to submit a status report in a week regarding the trial of pending cases related to illegal investments of YSRC chief Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and also graft cases, if any, pending against public representatives.

Y. Vedavyas, an advocate from Vijayawada, was seeking to declare the CBI’s action in going slow with the cases against MLAs, MPs, and thus enabling the accused to prolong the process of delivery of justice as illegal.

The CBI counsel said that there were eight cases pending before the special CBI court regarding Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy. The bench granted a week to the CBI to place all relevant facts before it.

ST reservation: TS gets 4 months
A division Bench of acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt of the HC on Monday directed the TS government to take a decision within four months on a representation seeking implementation of reservations for Schedule Tribes based on the 2011 Census.

The bench was disposing a PIL by All India Banjara Seva Sangh. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that reservation in direct recruitment and education and was six per cent when it should 9.34 per cent. Representations to enhance the reservation were also ignored.

While disposing the case, the Bench directed the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner’s representation and to pass orders within four months.

( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story