Hyderabad High Court: Plea seeks to name President of India in UoH case
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday asked the Centre to spell out its stand by Tuesday on an interim application petition urging the court to made the Visitor of University of Hyderabad — who is the President of India — as one of the respondents in a PIL seeking to restrain Prof. Appa Rao Podile from continuing as Vice-Chancellor. A division bench comprising Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice J. Uma Devi was dealing with the PIL filed by Congress leader V. Hanumantha Rao who auestioned the Centre for allowing Prof Appa Rao to resume charge as V-C though he was the first accused in a case registered against him under the IPC and the SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in suicide case of scholar Rohith Vemula.
Mr Rao urged the court to make the President, who is also Visitor of the UoH, a respondent as per Section 8 of the Central Universities Act, 2009. Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Visitor had the overall control over the UoH, including the appointment of the V-C. He said the Centre had admitted in its counter affidavit that the Visitor was empowered to appoint and removal of the VC.
The court sought the response of Assistant Solicitor General Narayana Reddy. He urged the court to pass over the case so that he could get instructions from the Centre. The bench told him to inform the stand of the Centre on Tuesday and adjourned the case.
Adilabad assets transfer halted:
While expressing its disinclination to stay the auction of the Adilabad unit assets of the Cement Corporation of India, the Hyderabad High Court on Monday asked the corporation not to hand them over to the successful bidder for three months. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter was hearing an appeal by CCI Employees’ Union, Adilabad Cement Factory, challenging an order of the single judge who had refused to intervene in the matter of closing the unit.
Mr S. Ramachandra Rao, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the single judge had erred in considering the request for revival of the unit, though the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruc-tion has committed procedural irregularities in deciding the closure of unit. Stating that the state government also trying to revive the unit, he said the employees were prepared to wait without salaries for a period of three months.
He urged the court to stay the auction process. Advocate-General K. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that the state government had intended to represent the Centre for the revival of the Adilabad unit. He told the court that some more time is required to persuade the matter with the Centre. Reacting to the submission, the bench said “it is not for the court to deicide whether the Adilabad unit must be continued or not.” The court would not be a hurdle if the Centre and state government agreed to revive the plant, it said.
The bench told the CCI that auction process may go on , but not to hand over the unit and its assets for a period of three months to successful bidder mean while the Centre may take a decision on the representation of the state government.
