Telangana HC Declines to Quash Passport Forgery Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court refused to quash forgery charges relating to the alleged alteration of parentage details in birth and school records for securing passports and certificates. Justice K. Lakshman was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bollineni Krishnaiah and others, questioning the addition of charges of forgery under the Indian Penal Code to a case pending at the Raidurgam police station. The petitioner contended that the investigating officer acted without application of mind, that the ingredients of forgery were absent and that the charges were inserted at the instance of the complainant and contrary to earlier High Court directions. On behalf of the state and the complainant, it was contended that the charges were included after verifying certified birth certificates and school records. It was alleged that the petitioners altered the names of parents in documents and used such forged records to obtain passports and bona fide certificates for the children. The judge observed that prima facie allegations of forgery and use of forged documents existed, which are triable issues. Taking note that the first petitioner is 80 years old and the other petitioners are doctors, and also considering the delay in lodging the complaint, the judge directed the investigating officer to file the chargesheet without arresting them.

HC faults APSFC for lack of diligence

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, dismissed an appeal filed by the AP State Financial Corporation (APSFC) against an order of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in connection with a loan recovery dispute. The corporation sanctioned a loan of `43 lakh in 1992 to Kabs Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., for establishing a terry towel manufacturing unit in Jukal, Shamshabad. The loan was secured by a mortgage of land, building, machinery and personal guarantees of the promoters. The company defaulted in repayment, leading to the seizure of the unit in 1995. The assets were later sold, but a sum of over `2.55 crore remained outstanding. To recover the dues, APSFC initiated proceedings before the civil court. The case was dismissed for default in 2007. Subsequently, the corporation filed an interlocutory application seeking restoration, which was also dismissed due to non-appearance. Another petition seeking the recall of that order was rejected by the trial court, prompting the present appeal before the High Court. The corporation argued that its absence was due to a miscommunication from its counsel, who had wrongly informed the date of the hearing. The court noted that no documentary proof of such communication was ever produced before the trial court or before it. Speaking for the bench, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for its absence and was not diligent in prosecuting the matter. The panel observed that “law is not a refuge for the negligent” and that rights must be pursued with due vigilance. Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and vacated all interim orders.

HC orders regularisation of part-time librarian

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld the claims of a part-time librarian to the regularisation of services. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his request for the regularisation of service. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Chakali Narayana, who has been serving as a librarian in a book deposit centre under the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha since 2006. Authorities claimed that he worked only two hours a day, that his wages were not paid by the government, and that he was not appointed to a sanctioned post. Justice Nanda, however, observed that the impugned order was illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the department’s own records. Referring to departmental communications from 1986, the judge noted that part-time library workers were in fact performing full-time duties of six hours per day and that recommendations for extending last-grade service benefits had already been made in their favour. The judge relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments to hold that long-serving employees in sanctioned posts could not be denied regularisation merely because of procedural lapses in their appointment. Holding that the rejection order of 2019 misrepresented facts and misled the Court, the judge directed the Director of Public Libraries to examine the records of the petitioner afresh, grant him a personal hearing, and decide on his regularisation with effect from his initial appointment in 2006, along with all consequential benefits.