Telangana HC Tests PIL on Bar Council Poll Delay

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday probed whether or not the conduct of elections to the Telangana Bar Council would constitute a ‘lis’ (disagreement) in the public interest. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing for admission, a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kongara Rajkumar. The petitioner challenged the inaction in the conduct of elections to the State Bar Council as per Section 8A of the Advocates Act. The provision envisages the constitution of a special committee in the absence of an election. The panel questioned senior counsel B.S. Prasad how the grievance would constitute a PIL. When counsel proceeded to talk about the delay in the conduct of elections, Justice Paul pointedly said that the court would go into the merits only after crossing the threshold challenge on the maintainability of the PIL. Aadesh Verma, counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India, in the meanwhile, pointed out that the Bar Council of Telangana had moved for the transfer of the case to the apex court. The question of the conduct of elections to the Telangana Bar Council was earlier heard by a single judge and the writ petition is pending. Against this backdrop, the present PIL was filed on the issue of failure on the part of the authorities to conduct elections to the State Bar Council. The panel posted the matter for hearing on admission after 10 days.

HC stays road work in Kesamudram

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the authorities to maintain the status quo about laying a 100-feet road in Kesamudram in Mahbubabad in a writ petition. Maduri Dinesh, who filed the writ petition, complained that the actions of the respondent authorities violated the law and the Constitution. Chikkudu Prabhakar, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the authorities were undertaking to widen the 22-feet road at Kesamudram in Mahbubabad district. He pointed out that the deprivation of the right to life to the public at large was unconstitutional. The petitioners would argue of deprivation of their land without notice to them or following the procedure prescribed by law. It was argued that the authorities must not acquire property except by following the procedure prescribed by law. The impugned action was in utter violation of the constitutional guarantee. Prabhakar also argued that even the district headquarters did not have an 80-feet road and the laying of the road in question was needless, unwarranted and unconstitutional.