Family Complains of Detention During Covid 19

Hyderabad:Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition alleging unlawful detention of a family, including an eight-month-old infant, during the Covid-19 lockdown, and sought the state’s response. The judge was dealing a writ petition filed by Palli Suman, who alleged that the Chennur police in the erstwhile Adilabad district illegally detained multiple members of his family in violation of constitutional safeguards and established procedural requirements. According to the plea, the petitioner was detained between April 16 and April 25, 2020, while other family members, including elderly parents, a sibling, a relative, and an infant, were allegedly held from April 16 to 20, without being produced before a magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period. It was further alleged that the detainees were coerced into admitting guilt in connection with a criminal case registered against them. The petitioner argued that the action of the police occurred during the Covid-19 lockdown and was in breach of settled legal safeguards and guidelines governing arrest and detention. Seeking redressal, the petitioner prayed for an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police officials concerned and for initiation of appropriate departmental action against them.

Teachers’ poll campaign under scrutiny

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the conduct of the principal and lecturers of a government boys college in Mahbubnagar for allegedly participating in election campaigning while holding public office. The judge was hearing a plea filed by N. Bharath Kumar and another challenging the inaction of the Chief Electoral Officer on a letter dated April 30, 2024, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, despite an inquiry report submitted by the authorities concerned. According to the petition, the Mahbubnagar district collector reported that the respondents participated in the BRS campaign during the Assembly elections, allegedly in violation of the election code of conduct. The petitioners contended that despite the findings in the inquiry report, no further action was taken by the authorities. Taking the plea on file, the court directed respondents to file their response and obtain instructions on the action taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to the said communication.

Quarry lease dues cannot lead to suspension of licence

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court observed that dues arising out of a quarry lease could not be used to suspend or interfere with a mineral dealer licence. The judge directed the state to clarify the status of settlement proceedings in the matter. Uma Maheshwara Stone Crusher filed a writ petition contended that a demand notice alleging non-payment of seignorage charges and penalty raised a liability of about `50 crore, against which a revision was filed. It contended that during the pendency of the revision, the state introduced a one-time settlement scheme under which the liability stood reduced to about `5 crore, subject to exclusion of seignorage already paid through government bills in terms of the applicable procedure. The petitioner alleged that despite this, and without issuance of any notice or order, the authorities revoked the e-pass facility linked to the mineral dealer licence, thereby preventing processing and trade. It was contended that the dispute pertained only to the quarry lease and could not be extended to the mineral dealer licence. During the hearing, the state contended that where the same person operated through different entities, action could be taken across both for violations by one entity. The court observed that the petitioner came forward for settlement and directed the state to specify the amount payable under the scheme. It observed that upon such payment, the authorities must deal with the mineral dealer licence independently and cannot mix the two issues. The court noted that when the petitioner was willing to pay up, such coercive action is unwarranted. Directing the state to obtain instructions on whether the proceedings relating to the demand notice and the consequent one time settlement have concluded, the court posted the matter for hearing.