Remove Unauthorised Cables From Power Poles: Telangana HC

The rest of the cables were unauthorised. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court orally directed the TGSPDCL to initiate immediate action to remove all the cables which lacked permission.

The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd challenging the government`s decision to remove internet wires from the poles, following the electrocution incident at Ramanthapur earlier this week.

Justice Bheemapaka showed a paper clipping where a nine-old-boy on the day of his birthday was conducting the last rites of his father and asked counsel for the Centre, the state government, GHMC, TGSPDCL and Bharti Airtel who was responsible. “Who is answerable to the nine-year-old,” he asked, and questioned if anyone could fathom how the incident would affect the child.

The judge asked the government authorities to be sympathetic to the people and take some responsibility while performing their duties, as their salaries were paid from the taxes paid by the public.

According to N. Sridhar Reddy, counsel for TGSDPCL, Airtel had applied for, and was granted, permission to use 97,024 poles. The petitioner had submitted a representation on June 10 seeking permission to place optical fibre cables on an additional 18,896 poles. He said that as the colour of wires used was similar and the TGSPDCL staff could not trace the wires for which the permission had not been accorded.

Counsel for Airtel submitted that it was using optical fibre, which do not allow the electric shocks. The judge adjourned the matter to August 25 after directing the Centre and the state government to come up with a plan to resolve the issue.

Litigant, lawyers apologise to HC judge in open court

Hyderabad: A litigant, N. Peddi Raju, and his two lawyers on Friday tendered an unqualified apology to Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court for making “scurrilous and scandalous” remarks against her. The Supreme Court had directed them to tender an apology to the judge in open court.

Accepting the apology, Justice Bhattacharya said: “I have read the affidavits of apology tendered by the three alleged contemnors and accept their apologies. The alleged contemnors shall place the suo motu contempt before the Supreme Court as directed in the judgment of the Chief Justice of India.”

The judge, while closing the matter “at her end,” expressed concern over the rising trend of litigants and lawyers levelling unfounded allegations of bias against judges, stressing that such conduct eroded public faith in the judiciary.

The controversy arose from a petition seeking transfer of a case involving Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, who had been discharged of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the orders of a Telangana High Court bench led by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court to transfer the petition from the Telangana High Court to another High Court. On July 30, the Supreme Court, issued showcause notices for contempt to litigant Peddi Raju and two advocates over their remarks against Justice Bhattacharya.

The case traces back to 2016, when allegations were levelled against Revanth Reddy of illegal land occupation and casteist abuse. The Telangana High Court quashed the FIR, citing lack of evidence of his presence at the alleged crime scene — a decision that prompted the transfer petition and the subsequent controversy.

Justice Moushumi Bhattachary expressed concern that the trend of vilifying judges had emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demanded release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the judge. Such reckless allegations derailed the course of justice by creating an environment of intimidation, which was not conducive to the effective administration of justice, she said.

Personal attacks on judges breached the safety net of impartial decision-making and was antithetical to independent judges. Targeting of judges made for skeptical and unsure judges, Justice Bhattacharya said.

The judge noted that the contemnors also forget that while casting – and circulating – aspersions in print or on social media could be done by the flick of a key, the judge concerned did not have a platform to present his/her side of the story. One-sided mud-slinging, more often than not, swung right back to besmirch the attacker, Justice Bhattacharya said.

The ‘majesty’ of a court is an inalienable part of the respect associated with upholding of the rule of law. Attacks on judges irrevocably dent the dignity of courts as impartial arbiters of justice and affects public trust and confidence in the judiciary, Justice Bhattacharya said. Advocates, as equal participants in the quest for justice, have a greater responsibility in ensuring that the court is not brought to disrepute.

“Judgeship is never about the power of the chair but is always about the responsibility of disseminating justice with conscience, commitment and compassion. The common man should repose full faith and confidence on the courts. Fortunately, notwithstanding the occasional stresses and strains, courts continue to be the proud flag-bearers of justice,” Justice Bhattacharya said, while accepting the apologies.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court stayed the closure of a commercial unit at RTC crossroads here. The judge admitted a writ plea filed by Raj Flavours and Fragrances, challenging action of the GHMC and its food safety officer in sealing its premises on August 20.

The petitioner claimed that the authorities acted in undue haste, without serving a notice. It was specifically contended that the civic authorities acted in a colourable exercise of power.

Senior counsel L. Ravichander, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the authorities did not furnish a sample analysis report before resorting to such action. He pointed out that the action was not only high-handed but also was an abuse of the process of law.

Ravichander pointed out that the procedure adopted for sealing the premises was contrary to law. He pointed out that while the sealing allegations relate to violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the property was sealed for alleged illegal construction.

The judge observed that prima facie sealing of the premises appears unjust and arbitrary. Justice Vijaysen accordingly directed the GHMC to forthwith unseal the premises, restore possession to the petitioner, and allow him to continue his business activity without obstruction, subject to compliance with the law. The judge clarified that any ongoing inquiry may go on in accordance with the law after providing due opportunity of hearing.