Cancellation of Freedom Fighters Pension Upheld
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Javvaji Bharathi, who had been receiving a pension since 2003 after her claim of participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement was accepted. However, her pension was later cancelled by the Union ministry of home affairs after a re-verification process raised doubts, particularly regarding her age during the freedom struggle.
According to the authorities, discrepancies in official records, including multiple electoral rolls, indicated that the petitioner may have been less than three years old in March 1947, rendering her ineligible under the scheme, which requires applicants to be at least 15 years old at the relevant time.
The petitioner contended that her date of birth was February 3, 1930, relying on school records, a birth register extract, a voter identity card, and medical certificates. She argued that voter lists are not conclusive proof and that primary documents such as school and birth records should carry greater evidentiary value.
The judge noted that an earlier cancellation order was set aside on procedural grounds due to lack of hearing, following which a fresh notice was issued and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The judge observed that the authorities followed due process, considered all relevant material, and passed a reasoned order. Holding that the dispute involved factual determination and evidence assessment, the judge reiterated that it would not act as an appellate authority in such matters unless there was clear arbitrariness or illegality. Finding no procedural or legal infirmity in the decision-making process, the judge upheld the cancellation order and dismissed the writ petition.
GHMC, traffic cops ads row in HC
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court sought a response from the GHMC and the police in a writ plea concerning traffic umbrellas and traffic booths carrying advertisements in areas falling under the Cyberabad and Rachakonda traffic jurisdictions, which are recently added to GHMC limits. M/s Pranaya Ads, the petitioner, contended that it was permitted by the traffic police to maintain 109 traffic umbrellas and five traffic booths under proceedings dated on October 26, 2022, issued by the deputy commissioner of police, Traffic, Cyberabad, and 94 traffic umbrellas under proceedings dated May 15, 2024, issued by the deputy commissioner of police, Traffic-II, Rachakonda, each for a period of five years. Counsel for the petitioner, V. Murali Manohar, contended that it continued to maintain the structures on the roads with advertisements and traffic police branding, and that the GHMC is now interfering with them.
It was argued that the areas in which the structures are located were only recently brought within the GHMC, and that any attempt to impose the regime generally followed by the corporation, contrary to arrangements legitimately entered into between the police and advertising agencies, was illegal. It was further contended that the structures are maintained for the welfare of traffic police personnel and are not merely advertisement kiosks. The petitioner alleged that municipal authorities were also damaging the advertisement flexes displayed on them.
The GHMC contended that permissions ought to have been obtained for kiosks, irrespective of any arrangement between departments. It was also the contention of GHMC that tenders are to be called as per the standard SOP for the purpose of setting up such infrastructure and advertising. During the hearing, the judge asked the GHMC if it would remove all such umbrellas from all over the newly added limits if the necessary permissions had not been taken, especially in the context of coming summer months. Recording the rival submissions, the judge directed the GHMC and the police to file their counters, posted the matter for further hearing.
Injection death: HC grants bail
The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused in a case relating to the death of a person allegedly caused by an injection administered by an unqualified medical practitioner. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Lunavath Roop Singh, who was arrayed as accused No.1 in an FIR registered at Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for offences under the Clinical Establishments Act and the Indian Medical Council Act. According to the complainant, the deceased, who was suffering from fever and body pains, was taken to a nearby clinic where the petitioner, alleged to be an RMP doctor, administered an injection, after which the patient developed swelling and frothing at the mouth and later died while being shifted to a hospital.
The complaint stated that the death was suspected to have been caused due to an adverse reaction to the injection. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused is innocent, that he did not administer any injection, and that he advised the family to immediately shift the patient to a hospital. It was also submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since January and the material part of the investigation has already been completed. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea stating that the allegations are serious in nature, that the petitioner was not authorised to provide treatment, and that the investigation was still pending.
After considering the material on record, the Court observed that the petitioner has been in custody, that most witnesses have already been examined, and that the material part of the investigation is completed, though the post-mortem report is awaited. Taking note of the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration, the judge held that the petitioner is entitled to bail.