Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Amangal police to expeditiously complete investigation into the complaint pending before it. The judge heard counsel Rapolu Bhaskar in a writ plea filed by Varkala Yashwanth Reddy against the state police, the Cyberabad chief inspector and Amangal station house officer (SHO) stating that though he had lodged a complaint with regard to trespass on his property, the police had not completed the investigation. The petitioner also impleaded Medchal circle inspector Bandari Narashima Sanjay Reddy. He stated that the police was not dealing with his complaint because his siblings, who were connected with the offence, were police officers and they were influencing the local police and stalling investigation. The judge voiced concern and said that there was a delicate balance between the rights of the petitioner for speedy justice and the need for proper investigation. The judge directed the police not to interfere with the petitioner’s right and closed the writ petition.
HC notice to SCR in contempt case
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a contempt case filed against South Central Railways (SCR) for violating its order. A contempt plea was sought by Sanyu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. complaining that railway authorities had proceeded to award fresh tenders contrary to an earlier order of the court. Sanyu Infra Projects had earlier filed a writ plea challenging the termination of a contract. It was contended that such termination was contrary to the decision of the division bench of the High Court. It was complained in the contempt case that though the termination was stayed, the railways proceeded to award the contract to third parties and had refused to redeliver the project site to the petitioner.
Discom notices to landowner set aside
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside distrained notices issued by the TS southern power distribution company limited (TSSPDCL) to a resident of Bhavaninagar, Banjara Hills, saying it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The judge directed the authorities to offer a fresh opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders. The judge made clear that until the Vidyut ombudsman takes a decision on the matter, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner had purchased 26 acres and seven guntas of land in Toopranpet, Choutuppal mandal, Nalgonda district in 1992 for carrying out agricultural operations. There were three borewells on the land. Even before the petitioner had purchased the land, the previous owner had obtained 4 LT agricultural service connections. The petitioner said that she stopped agricultural operations in 1999 and executed gift settlement deeds in favour of her husband, son and daughter. The petitioner thereafter did not receive any bills for the LT service connections. She alleged that in 2015 she received a telephone call requiring her to meet the assistant divisional engineer and she paid nearly '30,000 for each connection. However, she received a fresh demand for over 'seven lakh. Aggrieved by the same, she approached the Consumer grievances redressal forum-I, Revenue, rural, TSSPDCL, Erragadda. The forum held that the petitioner should clear all the dues. If not the respondent can refuse to provide a new service connection or restore the earlier connection. She then unsuccessfully challenged it before the ombudsman. The court faulted the authorities for not considering the plea of limitation since the bills were raised till 2013 though it is the case of the petitioner that had she surrendered the service connection in 1999. Justice Nanda faulted the forum and the ombudsman for not considering the crucial factors raised by the petitioner and not considering the ratio laid down by the apex court. She accordingly directed the authorities to reconsider the whole case afresh.
