Habeas Corpus Plea Filed For Farmer

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a habeas corpus writ plea filed by a man seeking production of his 44-year-old son, allegedly kept in illegal custody by the Echoda police of Adilabad district. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing the writ plea filed by Shaik Ahammad Ali. The petitioner contended that his son, Shaik Altaf, an agriculturist, was unlawfully picked up and detained by the police without compliance with due process. It was argued that despite orders passed in connected criminal petitions, the detention continued, and that the alleged detenue’s name was even altered in official records without authority. On behalf of the state, the special government pleader submitted that six criminal cases stood registered against the detenue. The panel directed the state to file written instructions clarifying the authority and circumstances under which the detenue was being held and on the issue of renaming.

Techno school misnomer challenged

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the functioning of Kakatiya High School (E/M), Siddipet under the alleged false name Kakatiya Techno High School. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kadattala Aravind Reddy, parent of a school-going child, who contended that the school management was misleading parents by using the word “Techno” in its name in violation of government orders. The petitioner contended that the practice enabled the school to collect higher fees under the guise of providing advanced “techno” education while also proposing to run dual syllabi (SSC and CBSE), which was impermissible. When the judge asked how his son was affected, the petitioner submitted that parents were being compelled to pay additional fees on this account and that children were being subjected to an uncertain academic framework. He sought immediate action, including cancellation of recognition of the school, removal of misleading signboards, and strict enforcement of the government orders. The judge ordered notice to the respondents, including the school education department and the school management and directed the government pleader to obtain instructions.

No chargesheet, accused gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused arrested in June for allegedly possessing `15 lakh worth of counterfeit `500 notes near Nizampet Arch in Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Prattipati Prem Chandu, who was apprehended by Bachupally police after he allegedly attempted to flee when intercepted with a rexine bag containing fake currency. According to the prosecution, the accused confessed during interrogation that another absconding accused was the organiser of the counterfeit operation. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was innocent, had remained in custody since June 21 and that no chargesheet had been filed despite key witnesses being examined. The judge observed that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, no chargesheet was filed as of that date and that substantial investigation was already completed. Accordingly, the judge deemed it fit to enlarge the petitioner on conditional bail.

Contempt notice to IAS officer

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to IAS officer Sandeep Kumar Sultania, principal secretary, finance and planning, in a contempt case alleging non-compliance with directions to release pensionary benefits to a retired Principal. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by V. Venkata Krishnaveni, a retired Principal Grade-I of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Backward Classes Welfare Residential School for Boys, Kothagudem. The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of the earlier order passed by the judge directing release of her retirement benefits. The judge in the writ plea had directed the respondents, including the finance department and the MJPBCWREIS, to release a total sum of `44,29,989 towards gratuity and commutation within ten weeks. The petitioner would allege that despite the clear mandate of the judge, the respondents failed to release the said benefits within the stipulated period and are therefore guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice.