Rights of Vendors vs Those of Road-Users, in High Court

Hyderabad:Justice Laxminarayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court examined the issue of balancing the right to livelihood of street vendors with the right of pedestrians and road-users to unobstructed public infrastructure. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bhilavath Sevli and other street vendors from Nanakramguda and surrounding areas who contended that the authorities had attempted to evict them without notice. It was stated that around 26 vendors depended on the activity for livelihood. The petitioners relied on the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and contended that eviction without giving a 30-day notice was illegal. During the hearing, the judge noted the competing claims between vendors seeking to sustain livelihood and the public interest in maintaining clear roads and footpaths. Counsel for the petitioners argued that while development, urban infrastructure and aesthetics were important considerations, they could not come at the cost of the right to livelihood of the people. The state contended that vending could be permitted only in notified vending zones and by persons holding valid identity cards. It was pointed out that the locations in question in the writ petition were not within such zones. Recording the submissions and taking note of the fact that a 30-day notice was not served to the petitioners before eviction, the judge directed the state to place its counter and restrained the authorities from taking coercive steps against the petitioners without following due procedure under law.

RDO directed to survey Falaknuma land

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court ordered a field inquiry by an officer of revenue division officer (RDO) rank, into alleged illegal constructions on a Waqf property at Falaknuma here. The judge noted that such directions were necessary at the admission stage since representations to the Waqf Board had yielded no result. Mohammed Ismail Khan, petitioner, contended that eight shops attached to the Masjid-e-Engine Bowli, situated at Engine Bowli, Falaknuma, were demolished for a Metro Rail project. Private persons attempted to claim compensation and were now raising constructions by encroaching upon the Waqf land. It was contended that despite representations to the authorities, no action was taken. The Waqf Board contended that the subject property was indeed Waqf property and required protection from the encroaching elements. The judge noted that the court was conscious of the fact that unofficial respondents who are alleged to have encroached on the land were yet to be heard, went on to direct the district collector to appoint an officer not below the rank of RDO to conduct a site inspection and submit a report on the nature of the property and existence of any illegal constructions. The court directed that upon receipt of the report, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board was to be consulted to ensure protection of the property if found to be Waqf property. The court also directed notice be issued to the unofficial respondents and permitted assistance of the local police for maintaining order during inspection.

Status quo on Ameenpur site

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed authorities to maintain status quo over a disputed land parcel in Ameenpur, Sangareddy district, in a writ plea alleging irregularities in survey proceedings and wrongful recognition of private layouts. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by the Sri Sai Santhoshinagar Welfare Association challenging the survey report issued on December 22. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities acted arbitrarily in recognising layouts of private parties despite the association holding an approved layout from the HMDA, and without verifying prior survey numbers. It was further alleged that VBHC Hyderabad Value Homes Pvt. Ltd unlawfully included various plots in its layout without any valid claim, and that layouts were prepared without proper correlation to survey records. The court was informed that the survey was conducted by the deputy inspector of survey after issuing notice to adjacent landowners and the petitioner association, but the grievances raised by the petitioner remained unaddressed. The judge directed the revenue authorities to submit a detailed report within 10 days addressing the objections raised by the petitioner association and posted the matter for further hearing.

Murder convict fails to get bail

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to grant bail in a criminal appeal, holding that the absence of a dying declaration did not weaken the prosecution case when supported by consistent and cogent eyewitness testimony. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Chetpelli Suresh, convicted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to record a dying declaration and did not examine key medical witnesses, including three doctors connected to the medico-legal case. It was further argued that the alleged weapon, a nail cutter, could not be considered a lethal weapon, and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses. Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor submitted that the conviction was based on consistent testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses. It was contended that the son of the deceased witnessed the incident and described the assault, stating that the accused continued the attack even when intervention was attempted. Upon examining the record, the court noted that the cause of death was septicemia and held that non-recording of a dying declaration, by itself, was not fatal to the prosecution case when there was reliable ocular evidence. Emphasising the consistency and credibility of the eye-witness accounts, the panel found no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court.