No-Trust Motion Against Municipal Chief: HC Refuses To Interfere

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday refused to interfere with an order on the motion of no-confidence against the chairman of Armoor municipality Vinitha Pandit. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, pointed out that the order refusing a stay of the no-confidence motion did not suffer an illegality warranting interference in an intra court appeal. Earlier, Pandit filed the writ petition complaining that the did not enjoy the majority as mandated under Section 37 of the Municipalities Act. The single judge reasoned that the 2/3rd majority must be calculated from those present and voted. Senior counsel D.V. Sitaram Murthy argued that while 2/3rd of the members of the municipality must call for the meeting and it is that numerical by which the motion be passed. He argued, albeit unsuccessfully, that the single judge erred in concluding at the interlocutory stage that two third of those present and voting was sufficient. While the strength of the municipality was 37, 24 members of the 25, who attended, voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence. Even on merits the panel noted that the pleaded prescript was 24.6 while the votes were 24 and therefore did not warrant interference.

Cong leader asked to bring all facts about Kaleshwaram project

Bakka Judson on February 26 was granted permission to amend and bring on record supervening facts on the issue of full-fledged inquiry into the allegation surrounding the Kaleshwaram project. The Congress leader had earlier filed a PIL requiring an inquiry to be conducted by a sitting judge of the High Court, it was reported that there were communications between the CMO and that of the Chief Justice in this regard, it was further stated to the former that such course of action was not possible. However, Sharath Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, stated that in the meanwhile a CAG report reflecting huge irregularities in the construction activity of the Kaleshwaram project has come to light and many factors were also tabled on the floor of the assembly. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, granted time to the petitioner to place on record whatever additional facts he wanted to bring on record.

HC questions delayed trials in criminal cases

Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Monday issued notices to the state police and the director of prosecutions to explain its failure in ensuring speedy trial of criminal cases. Nikhil Sathe filed the present writ petition seeking a general direction to all criminal courts in the state to impose costs/penalty on prosecution to be paid to the accused if they fail to bring the witness within two dates of adjournment. The writ petitioner was specifically dealing with a case filed by a businessman against Dhantala Prasanthi on the file of the III additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. Counsel for the petitioner, Akash Baglekar, contended that the authorities failed to bring witnesses time and again defeating the petitioner right to speedy trial. The judge granted four weeks’ time for the state to respond.

Polls to scribes’ housing panel: HC admits plea

The non-conduct of elections to Journalists Cooperative Housing Society is getting more and more curious. The latest development in a near three-year battle for the conduct of election and membership surfaced before the High Court for impleadment by other working journalists. The saga began in 2021 when the High Court directed the conduct of elections to the Journalists Cooperative Housing Society within three months. However elections to the society are yet to be conducted. It is alleged that about 800 members were removed from the rolls of the society. The non-consideration of their explanation was the subject matter of a writ plea pending the writ petition when their explanations were rejected the same was challenged in the High Court and the removal order was suspended. In the present application, the impleaders contended that as members of the society they should be heard against the inclusion of excluded members. Justice Nagesh Bheempaka allowed the said application and posted the matter for further adjudication.