Court Orders Data Transfer to T-Wallet

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, granted anticipatory bail to the directors of a payment service operator in the T-Wallet dispute case, after recording their undertaking that they would transfer customer data and wallet balances relating to nearly 16 lakh users to the government within a week. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Srinivasa Rao Katuri and Kiran Kumar, who were facing allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust arising out of operations of T-Wallet, the state government-owned e-money wallet platform.

According to the petitioners, their company was previously engaged by the government for operation of T-Wallet and the dispute arose after the government appointed a new operator and sought transfer of customer KYC details and wallet funds. The petitioners contended that Reserve Bank of India regulations prohibited transfer of customer funds and sensitive KYC data without obtaining consent from customers and that any such transfer without legal protection would expose them to serious regulatory consequences. It was submitted that the petitioners were willing to transfer the customer data and monies provided appropriate protection and directions were granted by the court. Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor contended that similar assurances were been furnished earlier by the petitioners but the customer data and wallet balances were still not transferred. It was submitted that the matter involved nearly 16 lakh customers and that custodial interrogation and cooperation of the petitioners were necessary for effective investigation. During the hearing, the judge specifically queried the petitioners regarding the time required for completing the transfer process, to which the petitioners sought two days. Recording the undertaking furnished before the court, Justice Madhavi Devi directed the petitioners to transfer the customer data and wallet funds to the government within a week and cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.

Land take for NH: HC issues notice

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court sitting in the vacation court issued notices to the land acquisition officer and other authorities in an appeal arising out of land acquisition proceedings for the NH-163G Mancherial–Warangal greenfield corridor project in Jayashankar Bhupalapally district. The panel comprising Justice T. Madhavi Devi and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ appeal filed by Anandapu Tirupathi and other agriculturists challenging the order of a single judge, which relegated them to avail the statutory remedy under the National Highways Act in disputes concerning compensation and acquisition proceedings. The appellants contended that their agricultural land situated in villages falling under Chityal, Mogullapally and Tekumatla mandals of Jayashankar Bhupalapally district were acquired for the four-lane greenfield highway project undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). According to the appellants, they became aware of the proposed acquisition only in April 2021 through notifications issued for acquisition of land in nearly 10 villages. They alleged that the notifications disclosed only survey number-wise extents without furnishing pattadar-wise particulars, thereby depriving affected landowners of a meaningful opportunity to submit objections. The appellants contended that despite filing objections opposing the greenfield alignment and suggesting widening of the existing highway instead, the authorities failed to conduct any effective hearing. Before the vacation court, counsel for the appellants argued that the writ court failed to appreciate serious procedural irregularities and denial of statutory safeguards in the acquisition process. It was further contended that the challenge raised by the appellants was not confined to adequacy of compensation, but extended to the legality of the acquisition proceedings themselves, particularly on the ground that pattadar-wise details, standing crops, trees and structures were omitted from the notifications, thereby frustrating the statutory right to object. After hearing the submissions, the vacation panel issued notices to the respondents and posted the matter for further consideration.

Court slams Sanathnagar cops for interfering in civil dispute

Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court came down heavily on the authorities of the Sanathnagar police station for interfering in civil disputes while granting interim protection to a 55-year-old man embroiled in a family property dispute. The court cautioned law enforcement authorities against compelling parties to arrive at settlements in matters of purely civil nature. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Prem Chand, who alleged that police authorities were unlawfully interfering in an ongoing family property dispute and attempting to force a compromise with the unofficial respondent. According to the petitioner, the dispute pertained exclusively to family property issues and did not disclose any criminal offence warranting police intervention. Counsel for the petitioner contended that police personnel were repeatedly visiting the residence of the petitioner, summoning him to the police station and allegedly threatening criminal action unless he agreed to settle the dispute. It was argued that the police possessed no jurisdiction to meddle in civil disputes or coerce parties into compromises under the guise of enquiry. Opposing the plea, the assistant government pleader submitted that the police were only discharging official duties pursuant to a complaint lodged by the unofficial respondent and maintained that no coercive action or arrest was made. It was further contended that the writ petition was premature and not maintainable. After considering the material placed on record, Justice Mohiuddin granted interim protection to the petitioner and directed the police not to harass him or interfere in the civil dispute between the parties unless the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. The court further directed the unofficial respondent to file a response in the matter.