Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Friday issued notices to the secretaries of the Assembly and the law and legislative dep-artment under the Contempt of Courts Act on a petition moved by expelled Congress MLAs Komatireddy Venkata Reddy and S.A. Sampath Kumar.
Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao directed both the secretaries to explain why action must not be taken against them for their alleged failure to implement the court orders, before July 13.
Counsel appearing for the MLAs told the court that a single judge had on April 17 all-owed the plea of the petitioners by setting aside the resolution of the Telangana Assembly expelling them from the House and the consequential notific-ations declaring the Alampur and Nalgonda Assembly constituencies vacant. He inform-ed the court that as per the procedure the respondents have to prefer the appeal within 30 days from the date of the order of the single judge. If they did not do so, the order of the single judge would become final.
He submitted that both the secretaries had intentionally avoided the appeal and not restored the membership of the petitioners. While issuing the notices, the judge posted the case July 13.
High Court modifies order on project-hit
The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday modified an order granted by a single judge who had directed officials not to dispossess artisans and agriculture labourers of Etigadda Kistapur and its surrounding villages of Siddipet district.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J. Uma Devi while dealing with an appeal by the state government made it clear that the single judge order would be applicable only for Etigadda Kistapur.
Mr J. Ramachandra Rao, additional advocate general, told the court that some agriculture labourers from Etiga-dda Kistapur had moved the High Court stating that they are affected by the construction of Mallannasagar reservoir, and sought a direction to the government to not dispossess them other affected families in surrounding villages without providing resettlement and rehabilitation. He contended that the single judge without verifying how the petitioners were aggrieved with eviction of the other villagers had granted the interim order.
While modifying the single judge order, the bench said it was mandatory for the authorities to ensure resettlement and rehabilitation of the affected families under the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
