HC Hears Writ Complaining Illegal Detention of Family during Covid

The Judge is dealing a writ petition filed by Palli Suman, who would allege that police personnel of Chennur Police Station 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 several other family members, including elderly parents, a sibling, a relative, and an infant, were allegedly held from April 16 to April 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 would argue that the actions of the police occurred during the COVID-19 lockdown and were 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 themHC refuses bail to murder convict.

Govt teachers campaign in elections under judicial 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 is hearing a plea filed by N. Bharath Kumar and another challenging the inaction of Chief Electoral Officer in not acting on a letter dated April 30, 2024, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, despite an enquiry report submitted by the concerned authorities.

According to the petition, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar reported that respondents participated in campaign activities of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi during the Telangana Assembly elections, allegedly in violation of the election code of conduct.

The petitioners would contend that despite the findings in the enquiry 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.

HC quarry lease dues cannot lead to suspension of mineral dealer license

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court observed that dues arising out of a quarry lease cannot 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 contending that it undertakes road construction works and holds both a quarry lease and a mineral dealer licence for processing, storage and trading of minerals.

According to the petitioner, a demand notice alleging non-payment of seignorage charges and penalty raised a liability of about 50 crore rupees, against which a revision was filed.

It contended that during the pendency of the revision, the state introduced a onetime settlement scheme under which the liability stood reduced to about 5 crore rupees, subject to exclusion of seignorage already paid through government bills in terms of the applicable procedure.

The petitioner would allege 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 further contended that the dispute pertains only to the quarry lease and cannot be extended to the mineral dealer licence. During the hearing, the state contended that where the same person operates through different entities, action can be taken across both for violations by one entity.

The Court, however, observed that the petitioner came forward for settlement and directed the state to specify the amount payable under the scheme. It further observed that upon such payment, the authorities must deal with the mineral dealer licence independently and cannot mix the two issues.

The Court also noted that when the petitioner is willing to pay, 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 further hearing.