Telangana Legal Briefs | How can KCR be asked to attend Assembly: HC on PIL

Hyderabad: A writ plea requiring BRS leader K. Chandrashekar Rao to attend the Assembly was a non-starter on Tuesday before the Telangana High Court. D. Vijaypal Reddy, general secretary of the Federation of Farmers Association in Telangana, in a public interest litigation (PIL) had sought a direction to the Speaker to take steps and put procedure into motion to ensure the attendance of Rao, leader of Opposition, in Assembly in order to raise the voice of people. A panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara pointedly asked counsel as to law under which the Speaker and the secretary-general of the Assembly could be directed to take steps in the manner sought in the PIL. It was the complaint of the petitioner that Rao became leader of Opposition in the Assembly from December 16, 2023 and his prolonged absence was with the intent of suppressing the voice of the people, especially farmers. It was contended by the petitioner that a legal notice was issued to Rao, calling him to attend to the Assembly session, which did not fetch any result. Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time to legally equip himself to the queries raised by the panel. The matter was accordingly adjourned by four weeks.

IPS allocation to Karnataka quashed

The Telangana High Court quashed the allocation of IPS officer N. Swetha to the Karnataka cadre and directed the Centre to reconsider the decision. A panel, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali and Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had ruled in favour of candidate. The officer, who secured the highest rank among IPS candidates from Andhra Pradesh in the 2011 Civil Services Examination, contended that she was unfairly denied a position in her home state despite her ranking. It was stated that she was assigned to the Karnataka cadre as an outsider. She contended that, as per the cadre allocation policy, she should have been considered an insider and placed in the Andhra Pradesh cadre. Her representation seeking a revision of the allocation was rejected by the government, prompting her to approach the CAT. The tribunal ruled in her favour, but the Centre challenged the order, maintaining that the allocation was done as per policy. The petition highlighted irregularities in the cadre allocation process, particularly issues dating back to the 2004 Civil Services Examination. The panel noted that during that year’s allocation, an insider OBC candidate was incorrectly assigned to the AP cadre, violating the 30-point roster system. Instead of correcting this mistake, the government created a supernumerary post to accommodate the affected officer, which had long-term consequences on cadre allocations, including officer’s case. The panel criticised the Centre for failing to rectify past errors and instead defending a flawed process. It stated that the actions of government unfairly deprived the candidate of her rightful allocation. The panel upheld the tribunal order, directing the government to reconsider her cadre allocation based on legal guidelines and past judicial decisions.

HC injuncts govt on Mamidipally land

Justice Surepalli Nanda of Telangana High Court declared illegal the actions of the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) in attempting to take possession of over 168 acres in Survey No. 99/1, Mamidipally, Balapur mandal, Rangareddy District, without due process. The judge allowed a writ petition filed by N. Ravinder and others and directed the authorities not to allot the disputed land to third parties without conducting a proper survey and following the due process of law. The petitioners claimed to be owners of various extents of land, having purchased them from one Abdul Rasool. The disputed land was part of the estate of the late Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, known as Mamidipally Kancha. In 1966, the government issued instructions to the Chief Conservator of Forests to transfer the entire Mamidipally Kancha land to the animal husbandry department for developing a salvage farm. The petitioners contended that acquisition proceedings in 1956 were limited to undisputed land and that their properties were never part of the government's acquisition or the land allotted to APIIC in 2009. In a detailed judgment, the judge reiterated the well-settled legal principle that no person in possession of property can be dispossessed except in accordance with the law. Despite interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners in March 2011 and February 2012, APIIC (now TSIIC) officials, along with the tahsildar, allegedly attempted to forcibly take possession of the land in September 2016, by removing temporary fencing and attempting to demolish structures. Justice Nanda held that the actions of TGIIC were unauthorised and not supported by any statutory provision. The judge observed that the authorities had acted in violation of the subsisting interim orders and legal principles and accordingly set aside their attempts to take possession of the disputed land.

Worker gets bail in Cybercrime case

Justice K. Sujana of Telangana High Court granted bail to a labourer accused in a cybercrime case. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Pittu Raghunadha Reddy. According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed by the de facto complainant, who alleged that she received a WhatsApp video call from an unknown person, was threatened with dire consequences, and forced to transfer around `9 lakh under duress. The police registered a case against the petitioner under the Information Technology Act, and the BNSS, carrying a maximum punishment of 10 years. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offence. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was a law-abiding citizen and the sole breadwinner of his family, with no prior convictions. Counsel pointed out that the material part of the investigation was completed, including the examination of six witnesses, and his continued detention served no purpose. The additional public prosecutor, opposing the bail plea, argued that the allegations were serious in nature, and bail should not be granted at this stage. After reviewing the material on record, the judge observed that the petitioner had been in custody for 55 days, the key aspects of the investigation were completed. Accordingly, the judge deemed it fit to grant a condition bail.